Abstract
Planners increasingly rely on collaborative planning models that
engage stakeholders to develop plans through consensus-based
negotiations. While support for using collaborative planning models is
growing, evaluation of their effectiveness is in its infancy. This paper
reports on a case study evaluation, using a multiple criteria evaluation
method, of an innovative collaborative planning process to prepare a
strategic land use plan for a region in British Columbia, Canada. The
study reveals that the collaborative planning process generated
important benefits, including improved relationships and understanding,
even though it did not result in consensus agreement on a plan. The
outcome also shows that the plan did not result in consensus because
some stakeholders were not sufficiently engaged in the process. In
addition, an unrealistic timeline was imposed that led to a final offer
selection process whose result was ultimately rejected by the
government.
Resume
Les planificateurs comptent de plus en plus sur des modeles de
planification collaborative qui encouragent les intervenants a elaborer
des plans au moyen de negociations fondees sur l'atteinte d'un
consensus. Alors que l'appui a l'utilisation de modeles de
planification collaborative augmente, l'valuation de leur
efficacite en est encore a ses debuts. Le present article fait etat de
l'etude de cas de l'evaluation d'un processus de
planification collaborative novateur visant a preparer un plan
strategique d'utilisation des terres dans une region de la Colombie
Britannique en se servant d'une methode d'evaluation a
criteres multiples. L'etude revele que le processus de
planification collaborative a engendre d'importants avantages,
notamment une amelioration des relations et de la comprehension, bien
que le processus n'ait pas permis d'atteindre un consensus
quant au plan. Le resultat demontre egalement que le plan n'a pas
fait l'objet d'un consensus parce que l'engagement de
certains des intervenants envers le processus n'etait pas
suffisant. De plus, on avait impose un echeancier non realiste qui a
mene a un processus de selection d'une offre finale qui a en fin de
compte ete rejetee par le gouvernement.
Key Words
Collaborative planning, resource and environmental planning,
regional planning, dispute resolution, public participation
Introduction
Planners are increasingly relying on collaborative planning models
that engage stakeholders to develop plans through consensus-based
negotiations. Collaborative planning models are now adopted by many
resource agencies including the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (Leach et al., Wondolleck and Yaffee
2000, Conley and Moote 2003) and are used in resource planning
throughout the world (Gunton and Day 2003). While support for using
collaborative planning models is growing, evaluation of their
effectiveness is still in its infancy. Advocates and critics of
collaborative planning are united in their call for more research.
The purpose of this paper is to report on an evaluation of
collaborative planning that is based on a longer term research project
being conducted by the Sustainable Planning Research Group in the School
of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University. The
research has been evaluating the unique effort by the government of
British Columbia to prepare land use plans using a collaborative
planning model termed shared decision making. Twenty-one land use plans
have been completed covering approximately 80% of the provincial land
base. Our research to date has conducted a macro analysis of the
completed twenty-one plans (Frame et al. 2004). This paper reports on a
case study evaluation of a single land use planning process to provide a
more in-depth understanding of collaborative planning than is possible
in a macro analysis of twenty-one plans.
The paper begins with a description of collaborative planning. This
is followed by a description of the case study region and the planning
process. The evaluation methodology is then described, followed by
presentation of the research findings. Conclusions and implications for
planning are summarized.
Collaborative Planning
For most of the twentieth century, planning has been dominated by
the technocratic paradigm that defines planning as a process employing
experts who use objective scientific analysis to define optimal
strategies (Gunton and Day 2003, Susskind et al. 2000). In the 1960s,
the technocratic model was criticized for its failure to recognize that
planning was based on diverse values that could not be derived by
science and that there was no optimal or correct plan that could be
developed without incorporating the interests of stakeholders. The
criticism of technocratic planning was fueled by the growing protests of
stakeholders over expert-formulated plans in areas such as natural
resource management, environmental regulation, transportation, and urban
renewal, that were clearly contrary to the interests of large segments
of society.
Planning theory responded to the criticism by acknowledging the
role of goals and objectives identified through democratic political
processes to set the framework in which plans were prepared (Davidoff
1965, McLoughlin 1969). Experts in this new participatory environment
were relegated to determining optimal means to achieve politically set
goals. The unresolved question in this new goals-based planning theory
was how the goals should be determined. The initial and somewhat vague
response was that goals should be determined by citizen participation in
the planning process. But how should the participation be structured?
In the 1970s and 1980s several planning models emerged that
specifically defined how citizens should be engaged to define planning
goals. The most common approach was to consult stakeholders during plan
preparation by seeking feedback through public meetings and public
comment. Another model, termed advocacy planning, proposed that citizens
should hire their own experts who would prepare plans and act as
advocates for different stakeholder groups much the same way as lawyers
representing clients (Davidoff 1965). The problem with advocacy
planning, however, was that it did not provide a framework for resolving
disputes among competing interest groups. A third model, often referred
to as alternative dispute resolution, also emerged as a way of engaging
stakeholders in the development of plans by allowing stakeholders to
negotiate a consensus agreement to resolve the dispute (Bacow and
Wheeler 1984, Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). The problem with
alternative dispute resolution is that it is reactive in responding to
disputes that have already arisen instead of proactive. This limits its
effectiveness as a planning tool.
Collaborative planning, which emerged as a distinct planning
paradigm in the 1990s, is a logical extension of alternative dispute
resolution (Gunton and Day 2003). Most discussions of collaborative
planning rely on Gray's (1985: 912) definition of the concept
underlying collaboration as "the pooling of appreciations and/or
tangible resources, e.g. information, money, labor, etc., by two or more
stakeholders to solve a set of problems which neither can solve
individually." Within this concept, different terms are used to
describe various kinds of collaborative planning including: partnerships
(Selin and Chavez 1993, Moote et al. 1997, Wondolleck and Yaffee 1994);
mediation (Susskind et al. 2000); community-based planning (Moote et al.
2000); consensus building (Innis and Booher 1999); shared
decision-making (Gunton and Day 2003); and co-management (Rao and
Geisler 1990). A central feature in all these collaborative models is
the engagement of stakeholders in the development of plans (Gunton and
Day 2003, Conley and Moote 2003, Selin and Chavez 1995). More
specifically, we define collaborative planning as the delegation of
responsibility to prepare and implement plans to a stakeholder group
representing all relevant interests that uses consensus-based
negotiation to reach agreement. Normally, collaborative planning will
use a facilitator, interest-based negotiation techniques, consensus
rules for agreement, and joint fact finding to develop plans that are
then recommended to statutory agencies that retain final approval
authority.
Advocates of collaborative planning cite many advantages of the
collaborative model relative to other models of planning (Gunton and Day
2003, Wondelleck and Yaffee 2000, Susskind et al. 2000, Selin and Chavez
1995). Key advantages include: increased likelihood of developing a plan
that is in the public interest because the plan incorporates the
interests of all affected parties; increased likelihood of
implementation because all affected interests support the plan; and
generation of "social capital" such as improved stakeholder
relations and improved stakeholder knowledge that provide long-term
benefits to society. Advocates and critics also identify limitations to
collaborative planning including: limited applicability to only those
cases where all relevant stakeholders are motivated to participate
and/or management agencies are willing to delegate power; high cost in
time and resources; inequality in power that gives some stakeholders an
unfair advantage; propensity to develop second best or vague outcomes in
order to achieve consensus agreements; and lack of an underlying
theoretical foundation.
Given the growing support and use of collaborative planning,
advocates and critics are unanimous in their call for more research to
evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of collaborative planning and to
identify best practice guidelines for effective use of the collaborative
model (Conley and Moote 2003, Gunton and Day 2003). British Columbia
provides a fertile environment for evaluation because it is the only
jurisdiction that we are aware of that has implemented collaborative
planning in a systematic and comprehensive manner to develop land and
resource plans for the entire provincial land base. The experiment with
collaborative planning has also been going on for over a decade in
British Columbia, long enough to provide evidence on long term impacts.
Case Study Region
The region chosen for the detailed case study of collaborative
planning is the Lil-looet region in the interior of British Columbia.
The Lillooet region is chosen as a case study for several reasons.
First, the planning process is relatively recent, thereby allowing for
easy contact with stakeholders. Second, the region has a long history of
resource conflict that provides a challenging environment for testing
the effectiveness of collaborative planning. Third, the Lillooet region
is one of the few land use planning processes that failed to reach a
consensus, or near consensus, outcome (Frame et al. 2004). The only
other processes that failed to reach consensus or near consensus are the
four plans that were managed under a different process by the Commission
on Resources and Environment (CORE) at the beginning of the
collaborative planning experiment in the early 1990s. Consequently,
analysis of the Lillooet process provides an opportunity to compare
characteristics of a process that failed to reach consensus with the
other LRMP processes that reached consensus. Assessing differences
between the Lillooet process and other LRMP processes that reached
consensus can help identify factors that contribute to success and
failure in collaborative planning. It should also be acknowledged that
care should be taken in generalizing from the evaluation of one case
study that has a unique outcome.
The Lillooet region is about 1.1-million hectares and straddles the
boundary between wet Coastal mountains and dry Interior plateau in the
interior of BC (Figure 1). The region is rugged with a relief exceeding
2,800 meters between the highest point--Skihist Mountain (2,944
meters)--and its lowest point--Lytton (140 meters). One-third of the
region is above the tree line and half is forested. The study area is
dissected by several major rivers including the Fraser and Thompson.
About 96% of the land base is Crown land administered by the province,
with the remaining 4% equally divided between Indian reserves and
private land (BC MRSM 2004).
The region has a population of 6,500 residents, half of whom have
First Nations ancestors. The largest population centers are: Lillooet
(2,700) and Lytton (334). By percent of total employment, the main
economic sectors in the region are: government (38%), forestry (19%),
tourism (15%), agriculture (12%), and mining (2%) (BC MRSM 2004). The
major planning issues in the region are allocation and management of
Crown land among competing sectors and jurisdictional control and
ownership of land between First Nations and the provincial government.
Planning Process
The Lillooet planning process followed a collaborative planning
approach that the provincial government termed shared decision making
(SDM). The SDM process was initiated in the early 1990s in response to
growing conflict in resource planning that traditional planning
approaches seemed incapable of managing. SDM was officially launched in
British Columbia in 1992, with the creation of the Commission on
Resources and Environment (CORE), which had a mandate to develop and
implement a new collaborative approach to land and resource planning
throughout the province. CORE defined SDM as meaning "that on a
certain set of issues, for a period of time, those with the authority to
make a decision and those who will be affected by a decision are
empowered to jointly seek an outcome that accommodates rather than
compromises the interests of all parties" (BC CORE 1992: 25).
CORE began to implement SDM by managing the development of land use
plans for four regions of B.C. and by developing a framework for SDM
that could be used by other government agencies. Simultaneously with
CORE, the government initiated a process termed Land and Resource
Management Planning (LRMP) to prepare regional land use plans for the
rest of the provincial land base outside the four regions being directly
managed by CORE using the same SDM principles developed by CORE. To date
twenty-one plans covering 80% of the provincial land base have been
completed (including the four CORE plans); four more plans, including
the Lillooet LRMP, are in progress (BC MAL 2006). CORE was abolished in
1996 after completion of the four CORE plans and the land use planning
process was managed under a new central agency, the Land Use and
Coordinating Office until 2001. The land use planning process is
currently managed by the Integrated Land Use Bureau in the Ministry of
Agriculture and Lands.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The Lillooet LRMP followed the SDM guidelines outlined in a number
of provincial policy documents (BC MSRM 2004). The key feature of SDM is
to delegate responsibility for preparing a plan to a group of
stakeholders who engage in face-to-face negotiations to reach a
consensus agreement. The steps in the process are outlined in Table 1
and the chronology of the Lillooet process is summarized in Table 2.
On November 23, 1995 the provincial government made two important
announcements regarding the Lillooet process (BC 1995). The first
announcement was the creation of a new protected area in the Lillooet
region called the Stein Valley. The Stein Valley had been subject to a
longstanding conflict between resource extraction and preservation.
Designating the Stein Valley as a park increased protected areas in the
Lillooet region from 0.1% to 10% of the land base. The second
announcement was the commencement of the Lillooet LRMP process. It is
interesting to note that the announcement of a major land use decision
pre-empting the deliberations of the planning table was unprecedented in
the LRMP processes. The protection of the Stein was made prior to the
deliberations of the process because the government wanted to ensure
preservation in advance of an impending election that would occur well
before the recommendations would be received from the Lillooet planning
table.
The Lillooet planning table comprised thirty-four members
representing government, resource extraction, environment and
recreation, and other stakeholders. The Lillooet table combined
representatives from a pre-existing stakeholder table called the
Lillooet Community Resource Board that was formed by the local Lillooet
community to advise on resource management and new stakeholders
representing provincial conservation interests. There were also four
professional support staff, a facilitator, and ten alternate members
chosen to represent their constituency group if the primary
representative was unavailable to attend. The government also invited
First Nations with interests in the region to participate in the
planning process as members of the planning table but First Nations
declined to become full participants. Instead, First Nations were
represented by a First Nations advisory group and one of twenty-eight
First Nations bands residing in the region attended planning table
meetings. The planning table participants received training in
consensus-based negotiation and adopted comprehensive terms of reference
that provided general directions, process structure, and expected
outcomes of the negotiation process (LLRMPT 1997). The planning table
decided to meet each month for one and a half to two days from June 1996
to March 2001 to develop a plan (BC MSRM 2004).
Although terms of reference had been accepted by the entire LRMP
table, polarization between stakeholder groups started to emerge in 1998
when three subgroups within the planning table developed their own
planning proposals (Mou 2003). In 1999 three options were developed. The
major difference among the options was the proposed protected area,
which was 12% in option one, 19% in option two, and 30% in option three
(Jim Britton, personal communication, March 22, 2007). All stakeholders
then decided to work toward a single plan, incorporating elements of the
three proposals. However, the mining sector officially withdrew from all
LRMP processes in the province, including the Lillooet LRMP, in 1999
because they concluded that they could not achieve their goals and
objectives by going through collaborative approaches. The province
appointed a replacement to represent mining interests, but the
replacement was not an official representative of the provincial mining
association (BC 2001).
In October 2000, the B.C. government gave a March 2001 completion
deadline to the planning table to complete the first phase of the plan.
In an effort to meet the deadline, the planning table tried to develop a
plan acceptable to all stakeholders through intensive negotiating
sessions using a two-phase approach. Phase one was to develop
recommendations on the main land use management issues, and phase two
was to finalize management decisions and establish strategies to
implement the plan (BC MSRM 2004). Two different plans were established
during these sessions: one from the resource extraction group and one
from the conservation/recreation group. One week before the deadline,
stakeholders agreed that consensus on one plan was not possible (Mou
2003).
This impasse led the stakeholders to accept a "final offer
selection" process in which each of the two groups would propose
its final plan to the B.C. government in the form of an offer (BC MSRM
2004). Consequently, the Lillooet LRMP table submitted two separate land
use scenarios to the B.C. government in March 2001 (BC 2001). The first
scenario was proposed by the coalition of Lillooet communities (CC) and
the second by the conservation, recreation, tourism, and community group
(CRTC). The two plans were similar in structure, including a summary of
the main objectives, strategies, maps, and background information on the
Lillooet area. The principal difference in the plans was the proportion
of the land base designated as protected areas: 15.7% in the resource
sector proposal and 18.8% in the conservation sector proposal. The
conservation sector proposal was forecast to result in a 14.5% reduction
in the timber harvest compared to a 10.8% reduction in the resource
sector proposal (BC MSRM 2001). It is interesting to note that the final
offer selection process had reduced the range of difference in the two
final offer proposals to 3.1%, which is considerably lower than the
range of difference among the earlier proposals of 18%.
In April 2001, the government completed phase one of the Lillooet
process to designate land use zones by approving the conservation
proposal to protect 18.8% of the land base. The government announced
that phase two of the Lillooet process to prepare more detailed
management plans for resource extraction would be completed by March
2002 (BC 2001). However, a new government elected shortly after the
decision to accept the conservation scenario cancelled the approval and
directed government staff to prepare a new plan. The government cited
community concerns over the plan as the rationale for the rejection of
the plan approved by the previous government. This is the only case in
which a plan proposal submitted from an LRMP process was rejected by the
government. Another important change that occurred subsequent to the
April 2001 decision was the accumulation of court cases that
strengthened the obligation of government to consult and accommodate
First Nations in any decisions affecting First Nation interests (Donovan
and Griffith 2003). The lack of consultation with First Nations in the
2001 Lillooet LRMP decision therefore could potentially undermine the
legal basis of the decision.
Following consultation with public and First Nations, the Ministry
of Sustainable Resources Management prepared a new draft land use plan
for Lillooet in 2004 (Figure 1). A major difference between the new plan
prepared for discussion by the government and the original plan approved
by the government in April 2001 is a reduction in protected areas from
18.8% in the original plan to 17% in the new plan (BC MSRM 2004). The
major proportion of this reduction--1.3% out of the 1.8% reduction--is
due to a reclassification of a section of the major new park proposal,
Spruce Lake, from "protected" to a new zone that would allow
tourism and mining while maintaining the prohibition on logging. The
remaining 0.5% decline is due to reduction in other protected area
proposals. As of March 2007, the draft plan is still being discussed
with First Nations (Jim Britton, personal communication, March 22,
2007). During discussions, no resource development is allowed in
proposed protected areas.
Evaluation Methodology
The methodology used to evaluate the planning process is based on a
multiple criteria evaluation framework developed by the Sustainable
Planning Research Group at Simon Fraser University and used in the macro
analysis of the twenty-one land use plans in British Columbia (Frame et
al. 2004). The evaluation criteria include eleven outcome criteria and
fourteen process criteria (Table 3 and 4). The criteria were developed
by integrating and enhancing evaluation frameworks proposed by Innes and
Booher (1999), Cormick et al. (1996), Moote et al. (1997), and Williams
et al. (1998). The eleven outcome criteria are based on four broad
measures of success: reaching an agreement, reaching an agreement that
is in the public interest, using a planning process superior to
alternative processes, and generating "social capital"
benefits such as improved stakeholder relationships and knowledge. The
fourteen process criteria are based on best practices planning criteria
based on Innes and Booher (1999), Cormick et al. (1996), Moote et al.
(1997), and Williams et al. (1998).
Assessing the degree to which the planning process meets the
criteria is based on stakeholder ratings derived from a survey for all
criteria except reaching agreement. The reaching agreement criterion is
assessed by examining the outcome of the planning process based on
planning process records. The stakeholder survey uses multiple questions
to evaluate each criterion: twenty-four questions are used to evaluate
the ten outcome criteria and forty-six questions to evaluate the
fourteen process criteria. The questions in the survey are based on
statements with which stakeholders agree or disagree using a four-point
Likert type scale of strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree,
and strongly disagree. For purposes of presentation, the strongly agree
and somewhat agree responses are combined as agree and the average for
all questions under each of the twenty-four criteria is calculated to
report the degree of agreement by criterion. Open-ended questions are
also used to assess stakeholder perceptions of the strengths and
weaknesses of the process. A coding system is used to categorize
responses and calculate the frequency of each type of response. Those
wishing to review the survey and methodology in more detail should
consult Frame et al. (2004).
Results
A total of forty-eight participants were identified to be surveyed:
thirty-four table participants, ten alternates, and four process staff.
Of the forty-eight targeted participants, thirty-three were sent surveys
by email or mail. No contact information was available for the remaining
fifteen participants. Responses were received from sixteen participants,
for a response rate of 33% of potential respondents and 45% of those
contacted. Respondents represented all key groups including support
staff, government, resource development, and conservation sectors.
Responses were received during March 2005 and are therefore perceptions
of stakeholders of the process structure and outcomes as of that date.
Responses for the outcome criteria are summarized in Table 5. To
date, the criterion of reaching agreement on a plan has not been met.
However, it is important to note that the planning table did achieve a
consensus agreement on a process to accept the outcome of a final offer
selection based on two submissions to the government. In this sense the
planning process did achieve a consensus outcome that was subsequently
rejected by the government, the first such rejection in the history of
the LRMP process. It is also important to note that, although the
process has not yet resulted in a final plan outcome, the process has
been successful in narrowing the range of disagreement among the
parties. As noted earlier, the range of difference in the options for
protected areas was reduced from 18% of the land base in 1999 to 3.3% in
the final offer plan options submitted in 2001. The 2004 government
draft plan recommends protected areas within the range between the two
final offers submitted in 2001. Therefore the process has been
successful in significantly reducing disagreement among stakeholders and
increasing the likelihood of achieving an outcome acceptable to all
parties.
Two other criteria were also not met: achieving an outcome that met
the interests of the stakeholder group (25% agreement) and reducing
conflict (19% agreement). However, more than one-half of respondents
(56%) agreed that the outcome to date has been in the public interest.
The process has also been very successful in generating additional
social capital benefits including: improved knowledge (94%), creative
ideas (88%), improved relationships among stakeholders (75%), and useful
information (75%). The strength of the process in generating social
capital was also the achievement most frequently cited by respondents in
the unprompted, open-ended questions (frequency of 38%). The process of
collaborative planning was perceived as superior to alternative methods
by 75% of respondents. The consensus-based, multistakeholder approach
was also cited most frequently by respondents as a strength of the
planning process in the open-ended responses (frequency of 75%).
Process management criteria summarized in Table 6 show that
respondents believed that the process was well managed, with agreement
ranging from 75% to 100% for most process criteria. Process criteria
that received lower agreement were stakeholder design of process (69%),
clear purpose of the process (63%), commitment to implementation (56%),
and equality of power among stakeholders (56%). The process criterion
with the lowest agreement (31%) was having realistic time limits.
Unrealistically short time lines was also the second most frequently
cited weakness in the open-ended responses (frequency of 33%), just
behind inequality of stakeholders (frequency of 38%). This suggests that
the government-imposed deadline that necessitated the use of a final
offer selection process was viewed by respondents as a major weakness of
the process.
Implications for Collaborative Planning
The findings of the evaluation provide important insights into
collaborative planning. First, the results show that collaborative
planning generates an array of benefits beyond achieving agreement on a
plan. Even though the Lillooet process has not yet resulted in a plan
approved by government, respondents still strongly agreed that it
generated important social capital benefits such as improved
relationships, knowledge, and skills for all participants. The process
was also successful in significantly narrowing differences among
stakeholders on protected area designation. Narrowing differences and
improving stakeholder relations has helped move the land use conflicts
closer to resolution. Second, respondents agreed that the collaborative
process was superior to alternative approaches despite its failure to
reach agreement.
The Lillooet experience provides some insights into the keys to
success in collaborative planning. First, the success of a collaborative
process is contingent on allowing sufficient time to achieve agreement.
On average, the collaborative processes in British Columbia took between
four and five years to complete, with a range from three years to ten
years depending on the plan (Frame et al. 2004). In the case of the
Lillooet process, a five-month deadline was imposed after four years of
process in attempt to reach a decision prior to an upcoming election.
The imposition of an unrealistic five month deadline was cited by
respondents as one of the key barriers to achieving a successful
outcome. To be acceptable to participants, collaborative processes need
to be allowed sufficient time to reach a decision without the imposition
of unrealistic deadlines.
Second, the success of collaborative planning is contingent on
participation of all key stakeholders. In the Lillooet process, two key
groups were absent: First Nations, who declined an invitation to
participate as members of the planning table at the inception of the
process and the mining industry, which withdrew part way through all
provincial LRMP planning processes in 1999. Although both First Nations
and the mining industry partially participated in the process, the
absence of these key parties as fully active members of the planning
table undermined support for the decision made by the government in
2001. Weak stakeholder support contributed to the rejection of the 2001
agreement by government. Consultation with First Nations and resource
interests are the foundations of the current process to try to reach
broadly-based social support for land use decisions.
Third, collaborative planning requires the stakeholders to work as
a group on a joint solution. In the Lillooet process, the stakeholder
table remained polarized into two major groups that were allowed to
develop their own separate proposals. Once the separate proposals were
developed by each group, the two groups remained attached to their own
proposal and were unable to forge a consensus agreement. The use of
final offer selection reinforced the division between the two groups and
created a winner and loser, which is contrary to the fundamentals of
collaborative planning. The creation of a winner and loser reduced
support for the 2001 plan, which encouraged rejection of the plan by
government.
Implications for Evaluation Methodology
The evaluation of the Lillooet planning process also provides some
useful insights into evaluation methodology. First, the case study shows
that it is important to use multiple evaluative criteria covering the
spectrum of potential benefits. If the narrow criterion of achieving
agreement on a plan acceptable to all parties was used, the planning
process would be defined as a failure. The inclusion of other measures
of success such as social capital provides a more accurate assessment of
the merits of the process. Second, care must be taken to evaluate a
process relative to feasible alternatives, not relative to just absolute
measures of success. The Lillooet planning process did not produce an
agreement and did not fully meet many of the evaluative criteria. While
these findings are useful for identifying ways in which the process
could be improved, the findings could be mistakenly used to reject
collaborative planning as a preferred model. In the Lillooet case study,
respondents were highly critical of the outcomes but they still strongly
agreed that the collaborative model of planning was superior to
alternative models. This finding illustrates that the key question in
deciding whether to reject a program or process is not whether the
process has deficiencies, but whether the deficiencies are greater or
lesser than feasible alternative processes. Sound evaluation, therefore,
must compare the program being evaluated relative to feasible options.
The case study evaluation also illustrates some of the challenges
in evaluation. First, it is not possible to conduct a controlled
experiment in which all factors are held constant to allow comparison of
alternative planning processes. There are too many confounding factors.
This study attempted to address this problem by comparing the
collaborative model to alternatives by relying on stakeholder
perceptions. Stakeholders, however, may have limited experience with
other models of planning and be unable to make valid comparisons.
Second, although it is important to use multiple criteria for
evaluation, it is difficult to assess objectively the degree to which
the criteria are met. The case study relied on stakeholder perceptions
to assess the degree to which the criteria were met. However,
stakeholder perceptions may be inaccurate or biased. Further,
stakeholder perceptions may change over time, depending on the stage of
the planning process. A single survey therefore may not accurately
record stakeholder perceptions. Also, some stakeholder views may not be
recorded because the stakeholder interests were not represented at the
table. In the Lillooet evaluation, for example, the perceptions of First
Nations and the mining industry are not recorded because neither group
were members of the planning table.
These weaknesses in the evaluation of the Lillooet process can be
addressed by modifying the evaluation methodology. Multiple surveys can
be taken at various stages of the planning process to more accurately
record stakeholder perceptions, stakeholders not at the table can be
surveyed, and stakeholder perceptions can be complemented by other data
sources using objective measures of success. These approaches were not
used in this study due to limitations in resources, difficulty in
identifying which stakeholders not at the planning table should be
surveyed, and difficulty in identifying and interpreting so called
objective measures of success. Objective measures of success, and the
degree to which objective measures are met, require a degree of
quantification that is not possible for many types of planning
processes. Planning processes have diverse outcomes that are difficult
to measure. Additionally, it is difficult to distinguish between
outcomes due to the planning process and those due to other factors. For
example, environmental indicators may show deterioration in ecological
health in the planning area, but the deterioration may be due to
exogenous factors such as climate change instead of failures in the
planning process. Without clear definition of the measurable impacts of
planning, it is also not possible to estimate net benefits or
cost/effectiveness of the planning process. Consequently, evaluation of
planning outcomes based on objective measures has major weaknesses.
Nonetheless, attempts will be made to address these weaknesses in future
evaluations of collaborative planning by the SFU research team.
Conclusion
Collaborative planning has emerged as a popular model of planning
with many alleged benefits relative to alternative planning models.
There is a consensus among advocates and critics alike, that careful
evaluation of collaborative planning is required to assess its merits
relative to other planning models and to develop best practice
guidelines to maximize its effectiveness. This paper describes and
applies an evaluation methodology for collaborative planning. The
research findings based on the Lillooet, B.C. case study illustrate the
strengths and weaknesses of the evaluation method. The findings show
that collaborative planning is a successful model capable of achieving
an array of benefits and is perceived to be superior to other planning
models by a significant majority of stakeholders engaged in the process.
This is consistent with the findings of a larger survey of stakeholders
engaged in collaborative planning (Frame et al. 2004). The case study
also provides important insights into best practices management of
collaborative planning because it is one of the few cases in British
Columbia that did not result in a consensus agreement. Key reasons for
the failure include imposition of an unrealistic deadline, development
of separate plan options by different stakeholder groups, and absence of
key stakeholder groups from the negotiation table. The case study
experience shows the importance of allowing sufficient time for
collaborative processes to come to a consensus decision and ensuring
that all key stakeholders remain engaged in a collectively driven
process.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank SSHRC for funding support for this research
and the anonymous referees for their helpful suggestions.
References
Bacow, Lawrence S., and Michael Wheeler. 1984. Environmental
Dispute Resolution. New York. Plenum Press.
B.C. 2001. Lillooet Land and Resource Management Plan- Phase 1.
News Release Backgrounder, April 17 2001.
[Accessed 1 December, 2006].
B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (MSRM). 2001.
Lillooet Land and Resource Management Plan. Socio-economic and
Environmental Assessment of Phase 1 Framework Proposals.
[Accessed 1 December, 2006].
B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (MSRM). 2004.
Draft Lillooet Land and Resource Management Plan.
[Accessed 5 January, 2007].
B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (MSRM). 2004.
Draft Lillooet Land and Resource Management Plan. Summary of
Socio-economic and Environmental Implications.
[Accessed 5 January, 2007].
B.C. Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE). 1992. Report
on a Land Use Strategy for British Columbia. Victoria, B.C.:
Queen's Printer.
B.C. Integrated Resource Planning Committee (IRPC). 1993. LRMP: A
Statement of Principles and Process.
[Accessed 14 October, 2006].
B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. (MAL). 2006. Strategic Land
Use Plans in British Columbia.
[Accessed 1
December, 2006].
Conley, Alexander, and Margaret Moote. 2003. Evaluating
Collaborative Natural Resource Managament. Society and Natural Resources
16: 371-386.
Cormick, Gerald, Norman Dale, Paul Emond, S. Glenn Sigurdson, and
Barry Stuart. 1996. Building Consensus for a Sustainable Future: Putting
Principles into Practice. Ottawa: National Roundtable on the Environment
and Economy.
Davidoff, Paul. 1965. Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. Journal
of the American Institute of Planners. 31(4): 331-338.
Donovan, Allan, and Jennifer Griffith. 2003. Duty of Business to
Consult With and Accommodate First Nations. The Continuing Legal
Education Society of British Columbia.
[Accessed 14 January, 2006].
Frame, Tanis M., Thomas I. Gunton, and J.C. Day, 2004. The Role of
Collaborative Planning in Environmental Management: An Evaluation of
Land and Resource Management Planning in British Columbia. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management 47(1): 57-80.
Gray, B. Conditions Facilitating Interorganizational Collaboration.
Human Relations 38(10): 911-936.
Gunton, Thomas I., and J. C. Day 2003. The Theory and Practice of
Collaborative Planning in Resource and Environmental Management.
Environments 31(2): 5-19.
Gunton, Thomas I., J.C. Day, and Peter Williams, 2003. Evaluating
Collaborative Planning: The British Columbia Experience. Environments
31(3): 1-11.
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.
Leach, W.D., N. Pelkey, and Paul Sabatier. 2002. Stakeholder
Partnerships as Collaborative Policymaking: Evaluation Criteria Applied
to Watershed Management in California and Washington. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management 21(4): 645-670.
Lillooet Land and Resource Management Planning Table (LLRMPT).
1997. Terms of Reference.
[Accessed 5 January, 2007].
McLoughlin, J. Brian. 1969. Urban and Regional Planning, A Systems
Approach. New York: Praeger.
Moote, Margaret A., Mitchel P. McClaran, and Donna K., Chickering,
1997. Theory in Practice: Applying Participatory Democracy Theory to
Public Land Planning. Environmental Management 21(6): 877-889.
Moote, Margaret, A. Conley, K. Firehock, and F. Dukes. 2000.
Assessing Research Needs: a Summary of a Workshop on Community-based
Collaboratives. Tuscon: Udall Center for the Studies of Public Policy,
University of Arizona.
Mou, Desiree M., 2003. An Examination of the Role of Group Dynamics
in a Multi-stakeholder, Consensus Land Use Planning Process. Masters
thesis, Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia. Vancouver.
Rao, K. and C. Geisler. 1990. Social Consequences of Protected
Areas Development for Resident People. Society and Natural Resources
3(1): 19-32.
Selin, S.W., and D. Chavez. 1993. Recreation Partnerships and the
USDA Forest Service. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration
11(1): 1-8.
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, Lawrence, and Jeffrey Cruikshank. 1987. Breaking the
Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. New York:
Basic Books.
Williams, Peter, 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): 1-8.
Wondolleck, J.M., and S.L. Yaffee. 1994. Building Bridges Across
Agency Boundaries: in Search of Excellence in the United States Forest
Service. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan School of Natural
Resources.
Wondolleck, J.M., and S.L. Yaffee. 2000. Making Collaboration Work:
Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Washington,
D.C.: Island Press.
Thomas Gunton is a professor in the School of Resource and
Environmental Management and Director of the Resource and Environmental
Planning Program at Simon Fraser University. He has held numerous senior
positions in government including Assistant Deputy Minister of Energy
and Mines for the government of Manitoba and Deputy Minister of
Environment, Lands, and Parks for the government of British Columbia.
His research focuses on environmental mediation and dispute resolution
and resource and environmental planning. He can be contacted at
tgunton@shaw.ca
Thomas Peter has a Master's degree in Resource and
Environmental Management from Simon Fraser University. He has worked in
a variety of positions in international development and is currently
working for the Canadian International Development Agency in Vietnam.
Chad Day is professor emeritus and founding director of the School
of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University. His
research focuses on institutions for integrated land and water
management and environmental planning. He can be contacted at
jday@sfu.ca.
Table 1. Steps in the collaborative planning process
Process Steps Planning Products
Preliminary organization
* Set regional priorities
* Identify agency commitments Agreement to make plan
* Appoint and train interagency
planning team
* Contact public stakeholders
and form stakeholder table
* Identify preliminary issues
and planning area
* Agree to terms of reference
Information assembly and Resource information reports
analysis
* Describe issues and links to Analytical reports
other processes
* Assemble resource inventories Recommendations
* Conduct resource analysis
Plan development Land use zones
* Define resource unit Management strategies
boundaries
* Develop management objectives Alternatives for testing
and strategies
* Identify management scenarios
* Analyze and assess impacts of
scenarios
Building an agreement Consensus report or option report
* Strive for consensus on
management direction or agree
on a range of options
Approval Final plan
* Submit consensus report or
options report for approval
* Prepare final plans based on
approval
Implementation
Monitoring and review Monitoring report, research reports
Amendment Amend plan as required
*Modified from BC IRPC 1993.
Table 2. Chronology of Lillooet LRMP Process
The BC government announces Lillooet LRMP process and November 1995
the Stein Valley protection decision.
Lillooet LRMP commences. June 1996
Mining industry withdraws from all provincial LRMPs. February 1999
Lillooet table produces three land use options ranging June 1999
from 12% to 30% of land base as protected areas.
Provincial government gives March 2001 as a completion October 2000
deadline for the first phase of the Lillooet LRMP and
March 2002 for the second phase.
Participants fail to reach consensus after more than March 2001
four years of negotiations on a single plan. They
submit two plans to the provincial government.
Provincial government approves the second scenario (from April 2001
conservation, recreation, and tourism and community
group).
New provincial government announces its intention to November 2001
override the previous government's land use decision
and requests Ministry of Sustainable Resource
Management to complete the LRMP.
Provincial government releases draft LRMP for July 2004
consultation with First Nations and announces that
there are issues, including consultation with First
Nations, that must be resolved prior to a final
Cabinet decision.
Provincial government signs protocol with First Nations June 2004 to
to commence government-to-government negotiations on present
land use planning and other matters in Lillooet (March 2007)
region.
Modified from BC MSRM 2004 and Jim Britton, personal communication,
March 22, 2007.
Table 3. Outcome criteria for evaluating CP process
1. Agreement The process reaches an agreement accepted by
all parties.
2. Perceived as The process and outcomes are perceived as
Successful successful by stakeholders.
3. Conflict Reduced The process reduces conflict.
4. Superior to Other The process is perceived as superior to
Methods alternative methods.
5. Innovation and The process produces creative and innovative
Creativity ideas and outcomes.
6. Knowledge, Stakeholders gained knowledge, understanding,
Understanding and and skills by participating in the process.
Skills
7. Relationships and The process created new personal and working
Social Capital relationships, and social capital among
participants.
8. Second-order Effects The process had second-order effects including
changes in behaviors, spin-off partnerships,
umbrella groups, collaborative activities, new
practices and/or new institutions.
Participants worked together on issues or
projects outside the process.
9. Information The process produced improved data,
information, and analyses through joint fact
finding that stakeholders understand and
accept as accurate.
10.