PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network]On: 9 April 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 918588849]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Society & Natural ResourcesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713667234

Collaborative Planning in Complex Stakeholder Environments: AnEvaluation of a Two-Tiered Collaborative Planning ModelDrea Cullen a; Gordon J. A. McGee a; Thomas I. Gunton a;J. C. Day a

a School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BritishColumbia, Canada

Online publication date: 09 March 2010

To cite this Article Cullen, Drea , McGee, Gordon J. A. , Gunton, Thomas I. andDay, J. C.(2010) 'Collaborative Planning inComplex Stakeholder Environments: An Evaluation of a Two-Tiered Collaborative Planning Model', Society & NaturalResources, 23: 4, 332 — 350To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/08941920903002552URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920903002552

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Collaborative Planning in Complex StakeholderEnvironments: An Evaluation of a Two-Tiered

Collaborative Planning Model

DREA CULLEN, GORDON J. A. MCGEE,THOMAS I. GUNTON, AND J. C. DAY

School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon FraserUniversity, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada

An innovative model of collaborative planning that delegates responsibility for planpreparation to a two-tier stakeholder process to accommodate the special position ofaboriginal groups is evaluated based on a participant survey using 25 evaluativecriteria. The two-tier collaborative model was comprised of one negotiating tableinvolving all stakeholders and First Nations that sent recommendations to a secondnegotiating table comprised of only First Nations and government. The two-tiermodel was used to develop a plan for the internationally significant Great BearRainforest in British Columbia, Canada. The two-tier process reached a consensusagreement resulting in significant changes to land use and regional governancestructures in the study area. Overall, the results show that a two-tier model can helpcollaborative planning be successful in complex stakeholder environments involvingsignificant differences in values, culture, and legal entitlement.

Keywords collaborative planning, environmental conflict resolution, land useplanning, sustainable development

Collaborative planning is an innovative approach to managing natural resourcesthat is increasingly utilized by management agencies and advocated by experts(Conley and Moote 2003; Selin and Chavez 1995; Selin et al. 2000; Susskind et al.2003; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). We define collaborative planning (CP) as dele-gating responsibility for planning to stakeholders who engage in interest-basednegotiation to reach consensus agreement on plans. The delegation of planning tostakeholders is an important change from more traditional planning structures thatrely on expert decision making with limited public consultation (Susskind et al. 2003;Wondolleck and Yaffe 2000). Given its increasing popularity, it is important toevaluate collaborative planning to identify its strengths and weaknesses.

British Columbia, Canada, is one jurisdiction that has enthusiastically embracedcollaborative planning. Commencing in the early 1990s, British Columbia officiallyadopted a form of collaborative planning termed ‘‘shared decision making’’ as the

Received 7 June 2007; accepted 20 August 2008.Address correspondence to Thomas I. Gunton, School of Resource and Environmental

Management, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia,V5A 1S6, Canada. E-mail: tgunton@shaw.ca

Society and Natural Resources, 23:332–350Copyright # 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0894-1920 print=1521-0723 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08941920903002552

332

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 18:01 9 April 2010

means for preparing land and resource management plans for virtually the entireland base. British Columbia provides an excellent opportunity to evaluate collabora-tive planning for several reasons. First, it is the only jurisdiction in the world that weare aware of that has systematically used collaborative planning to prepare land useplans for its entire land base. Therefore, the British Columbia experience provides acomprehensive test of collaborative planning. Second, the CP process has beenunderway for more than a decade, providing a track record long enough to allowfor comprehensive evaluation. Third, British Columbia is characterized by intenseresource conflicts among diverse stakeholders. An especially complex aspect ofplanning in British Columbia is accommodating the interests of two very differentgroups: culturally distinct First Nations, who have special legal rights and title tothe land and resources and do not view themselves as normal stakeholders, andnon-First Nation stakeholders. Therefore, British Columbia provides a good testof the effectiveness of collaborative planning in complex stakeholder environments.

Evaluation of collaborative planning in British Columbia is the subject of along-term research project for the School of Resource and Environmental Manage-ment at Simon Fraser University. Results of earlier research stages are reported byGunton et al. (2003a, 2003b) and Frame et al. (2004). This article reports findingsutilizing the methodology in these earlier studies to evaluate a unique collaborativeplanning process in British Columbia’s Great Bear Rainforest. The Great BearRainforest, approximately 6.4 million hectares in size, is an ecologically diverseand internationally significant coastal region containing one-quarter of the world’sremaining temperate forests (RSP 2006).

The collaborative planning process evaluated in this case study is of specialsignificance because of its innovative features. Prior collaborative planning processesin British Columbia used single negotiating tables to prepare each plan. Although theseprocesses were successful in reaching consensus agreements, one of the majorinterests—First Nations—was not adequately engaged (Frame et al. 2004). The GreatBear Rainforest planning process attempted to address this challenge of engaging FirstNationsbyadopting a two-tier structure. The first tier consistedof onenegotiating tablecomprised of all stakeholders including First Nations, which submitted recommenda-tions to a second ‘‘government to government’’ tier negotiating table comprised of onlyFirst Nations and the provincial government. The decision from the second table wasthen ratified by the provincial government, which retained final decision-makingauthority.Given that the two-tier structure designed to engagemore fully FirstNationspotentially conflicts with several of the basic precepts of collaboration—equalopportunity and inclusiveness—it is important to evaluate this innovative attempt toadapt collaborative planning to complex stakeholder environments.

We begin with a brief overview of collaborative planning. Next we describethe case-study region and the planning process, followed by a discussion of theevaluation methodology and research findings.

Collaborative Planning

Collaborative planning (CP) emerged as a distinct planning paradigm in the 1990s(Healey 1997, 1998; Selin and Chavez 1995; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Likemost new paradigms, CP is characterized by many different labels and definitions.The common theme permeating all definitions is the need to engage stakeholdersin interest-based negotiations that apply consensus building to plan development

Collaborative Planning in Complex Environments 333

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 18:01 9 April 2010

(Conley and Moote 2003; Gunton and Day 2003; Selin et al. 2000; Susskind et al.2003). The delegation of responsibility for planning to stakeholders in CP is a signifi-cant departure from more traditional ‘‘technocratic’’ approaches to planning, whichrely on experts to make scientifically based decisions based on consultation with thepublic (Gunton and Day 2003; Susskind et al. 2003; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000).CP therefore entails a much higher level of public involvement in planning.

Advocates of CP allege that CP offers numerous advantages over conventionalplanning methods (Gray 1989; Gunton and Day 2003; Healey 1997, 1998; Innes andBooher 1999; Innis 2005; Susskind et al. 2003; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). First, itis alleged that CP is more likely to resolve conflict than more traditional expert-driven processes because it provides a forum to allow stakeholders to negotiateagreements that meet the interests of all parties, thereby avoiding win=loss outcomesgenerated by more adversarial approaches. Consequently, CP can be more efficientthan traditional planning processes by reducing opposition and conflict. Second,support for an agreement is increased if all stakeholders are involved in the planningprocess. Greater support for the final agreement subsequently increases the likeli-hood of successful implementation. Third, agreements reached through CP maybe of higher quality as a result of increased dialogue and the broad array of experi-ence and knowledge multiple stakeholders bring to the table. Fourth, CP cangenerate social capital through improved stakeholder relations, new communicationskills, and better information.

It is also alleged that CP faces challenges and limitations (Caton Campbell andFloyd 1996; Gunton and Day 2003; McMullin and Neilson 1991; Moote et al. 1997;Susskind et al. 2003; Weidner 1998). First, CP is contingent on all stakeholders beingmotivated to participate fully in the planning process. Often, more powerful stake-holders may be reluctant to participate because they can achieve their objectivesmore effectively through other avenues. In negotiating terms, the best alternativeto a negotiated agreement (BATNA) for these more powerful stakeholders is moreattractive than a negotiated agreement. Second, even if all stakeholders are moti-vated to participate, some stakeholders may be more powerful and may be able toachieve their objectives without considering the interests of less powerful stake-holders. Third, CP may motivate stakeholders to settle for second-best or vaguesolutions in order to reach agreement. In effect, the drive for consensus may out-weigh the need for each stakeholder to meet his or her interests. Fourth, managinga CP process involving many diverse interest groups is challenging. Comprehensiverules of operation are required to avoid confusion and frustration on the part ofparticipants. Fifth, delegating decision making to stakeholders may underminepublic accountability. Government agencies may abdicate their legally prescribedresponsibilities to manage resources to unelected stakeholders, effectively excludingthe general public. Finally, fundamental ideological or value differences, often acommon feature of natural resource management, may prevent consensus-baseddecision making from reaching a mutually satisfactory agreement.

To summarize, there are many alleged advantages and challenges associatedwith CP. Given the increasingly popularity of CP, it is important to evaluate care-fully the validity of these advantages and challenges. In particular, it is importantto evaluate innovations in CP, such as the two-tier table structure used in the GBRF,that are designed to manage collaboration in complex stakeholder environments.The evaluation of the innovative two tier model is the primary objective of theresearch reported in this article.

334 D. Cullen et al.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 18:01 9 April 2010

Land Use Planning in British Columbia

British Columbia has a population of just over 4 million and an area of 95 millionhectares, making it larger than the states of California, Oregon, and Washingtoncombined. Over 85% of the land base is classified as forest, which supports a largeresource industry. Prior to the 1990s, the British Columbia (BC) Ministry of Forestswas the dominant agency in Crown land planning (Gunton 1991; Wilson et al. 2001).Within the planning process of the Ministry of Forestry, dialogue with the forestindustry was common; however, public input was only solicited near the end of plandevelopment. During the 1980s and early 1990s, land use planning in BC was char-acterized by growing unrest involving blockades, protests, and international boycottcampaigns against BC forest products. This so called ‘‘war in the woods’’ thatresulted from the lack of public engagement and lack of attention to nontimbervalues in the expert-driven planning system prompted a revamp of the provincialplanning strategy (Gunton 1998; Wilson et al. 2001).

In 1992, a new agency, the Commission on Resources and the Environment(CORE), was created to reform the land use planning process (BC Government2004) by adopting a collaborative model of planning termed ‘‘shared decisionmaking.’’ This new collaborative approach employs stakeholder tables representingregional and district resource management agencies, industry, labor, First Nations,environmental organizations, and the public to prepare broad land and resourcemanagement plans (LRMPs). The stakeholder tables use consensus-based negotia-tions to prepare plans that are then submitted to the provincial government forapproval. Resource managers provide technical direction and support to these multi-stakeholder planning tables (BC Government 1994).

As of January 2007, 21 plans covering 80% of the provincial land base have beencompleted and four plans are in progress (BC Government MAL 2007). Seventeen ofthe plans were developed by consensus or near consensus agreement of the stake-holders. The plans allocate land to specific zones, including protected areas whereno resource development is allowed, special management areas where resource devel-opment is allowed subject to special restrictions to protect environmental values, andgeneral resource areas. The plans have resulted in a significant change in land use,including an increase in protected areas from 5.6% to almost 14% of the province(Frame et al. 2004).

An important feature of the land use planning process in BC is the role of FirstNations. Treaties have not been concluded between the Canadian government andFirst Nations for almost all of British Columbia. First Nations of BC contend thatthey have the right to govern themselves and their land and resources. After decadesof ignoring the issue, a series of court cases encouraged the federal and BC provincialgovernments to commence comprehensive treaty negotiations in the 1990s with FirstNations to resolve jurisdictional uncertainty. To date, only a few treaties have beenconcluded. Since commencement of the treaty process, more court rulings havestrengthened the legal position of First Nations by confirming the existence ofunextinguished aboriginal rights as well as the obligation of governments to consultand accommodate First Nations’ interests prior to taking actions on Crown land(Donovan and Griffith 2003). Another complexity is identifying which First Nationsshould be consulted and who the representatives for First Nations should be atnegotiating tables. There are approximately 200 different First Nations in BC, manyof which have overlapping territories and many smaller communities within each

Collaborative Planning in Complex Environments 335

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 18:01 9 April 2010

First Nation (BC Government MARR 2007). In sum, the rights of First Nationshave created a complex planning environment characterized by significant differ-ences among stakeholders.

Case Study

Study Region

The Great Bear Rainforest (GBRF) incorporates approximately 6.4 million hectaresof marine, foreshore, and upland area extending along the central and northern coastof British Columbia, Canada (Figure 1). A varied topography with numerouslow-lying islands, a rugged shoreline marked with steep-walled fjords and channels,high mountains, and productive valley bottoms characterize the region (CCLRMP2004). The mild, wet winters of the area’s coastal climate account for the numerouscoastal plain wetlands and temperate rainforests (CCLRMP 2004).

There are numerous critical environmental values in the GBRF. The mostcontentious values include management of forested lands that represent one-quarter

Figure 1. Location of the Great Bear Rainforest.

336 D. Cullen et al.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 18:01 9 April 2010

of the world’s remaining temperate forests, and protection of the grizzly andKermode bears that inhabit these forests (CCLRMP 2004). Grizzly bears are desig-nated as an at-risk species and the Kermode bear is a rare, white-coated black bear,also referred to as the spirit bear for its cultural significance to First Nations people(CCLRMP 2004).

As per the 2001 census, approximately 22,000 people live in the GBRF planarea, 50% of which are comprised of over 20 different First Nations. The majorityof the residents live in Prince Rupert (13,000), the largest center in the region. Theremainder of the population resides in coastal communities, many of which are onlyaccessible by air or water.

In recent years, the socioeconomic situation of the residents declined. Unem-ployment rates and other social measures such as health, education, and childrenat risk are a concern, especially for First Nations groups (CCLRMP 2004). Theeconomy of the GBRF is based largely on resource industries such as fishing, for-estry, and tourism, as well as public-sector employment (BC Government 2005). Thisreliance on resource extractive industries makes the regional economy sensitive tolarger scale economic cycles, and in recent years severe reductions in fishing, forestry,and related transportation have negatively affected the area (BC Government 2005).

The Planning Process

The Great Bear Rainforest land use decision developed out of two separate butsimilar land use planning processes: the Central Coast LRMP and the North CoastLRMP. The Central Coast plan developed in two phases. The first phase, whichbegan in 1996 and ended in 2001, was similar to previous collaborative land use plan-ning processes in BC. A planning table was created representing all stakeholdersincluding First Nations, government, resource industries, and conservationists.Although the planning table was unable to reach a final land use plan agreement,it did reach a consensus Framework Agreement that included recommendationsand guidelines for phase two (CCLRMP 2004).

Phase two of the Central Coast LRMP planning process adopted key innova-tions that made it different from previous collaborative processes. The most impor-tant innovation in phase two was adoption of a new two table structure designed toaccommodate the two distinct groups of participants: First Nations with specialaboriginal rights, and other stakeholders. The first table (Table I) was compromisedof all stakeholders including First Nations. Each sector and each First Nation wasasked to designate a representative. Ten non-First Nation participants were chosenfrom the following sectors: small business forestry, major forest companies, labor,conservation, tourism, recreation and wildlife, energy and mining, local government(2), and the provincial government. Several groups of First Nations chose to bejointly represented by one participant and two others by their own participant. Intotal, Table I was comprised of 14 stakeholders, down significantly from the morethan 50 stakeholders who had participated in the first phase between 1996 and 2001.

After Table I reached agreement, the recommendations were then sent to Table II,which included only First Nations and government representatives, for finalization.Table II was characterized as ‘‘government to government’’ negotiations between FirstNation government representatives and provincial government representatives. Collec-tive negotiations at Table II were complemented by bilateral negotiations betweenthe provincial government and each First Nations on more detailed agreements.

Collaborative Planning in Complex Environments 337

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 18:01 9 April 2010

Recognizing First Nations as a government at Table II was in part a response to grow-ing pressure from First Nations strengthened by a series of court decisions thatincreasingly affirmed the legal rights of First Nations to manage land and resources.The recommendations of Table II were then sent to the provincial government forfinal approval.

Several other innovative features of the phase two process merit mention. First,a nongovernmental process called the Joint Solutions Project was initiated by envir-onmentalists and the forest sector, who met outside the formal planning table toresolve conflicts threatening the operation of the planning process. Second, a newentity called the Coast Information Team (CIT) was created to provide informationto the planning tables. An objective of the CIT was to improve confidence in theinformation by having it provided by a quasi-independent technical team reportingto the planning table instead of by government ministries that had been used in pre-vious BC collaborative processes. Third, two funds jointly financed by governmentand nongovernmental entities totalling $155 million were created to invest in sustain-able development projects and help ease the economic transition to a sustainableeconomy.

By 2004, Table I reached a signed consensus agreement. The recommendationsfrom table I formed the foundation of the government-to-government negotiationsbetween First Nations and the BC government at Table II. These government-to-government negotiations resulted in the draft Central Coast land use plan. Table IIrecommendations were then submitted to the BC government, which approved therecommendations without change and announced the planning decision in early2006 (CCLRMP 2004; BC Government 2006).

The North Coast LRMP, which covered the remaining area of the GBRF, useda process virtually identical to the Central Coast process. The North Coast processcommenced in February 2002, reached consensus agreement in 2005, and wasannounced jointly with the Central Coast plan in 2006 as the GBRF planningdecision (BC Government 2006).

Land Use Decision

The GBRF land use decision allocated land to three zones: protected areas (28%),biodiversity areas (5%), and ecosystem-based management (EBM) operating areas(67%). The proportions of the GBRF allocated to each land use zone before andafter the plan summarized in Table 1 show that the plan resulted in a significantchange in land use, with protected areas increasing from 9% to 28% of the

Table 1. Comparison of land use zones before and after the GBRF Land Use Plan

Land use zones Before GBRF Plan After GBRF Plan

Protected areas 9% 28%EBM biodiversity areas 0% 5%EBM operating areas 0% 67%General resource use areas 91% N=ATotal 100% 100%

Note. Source: BC Government (2006).

338 D. Cullen et al.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 18:01 9 April 2010

land base. The protected areas emphasize habitat conservation, maintenance ofbiodiversity, and the preservation of special landscape, recreation, and cultural heri-tage values (BC 2006). Biodiversity areas allow for some resource development,while maintaining ecological diversity and function. Specifically, commercial forestryand major hydroelectric activities are not permitted in these zones, while other landuses such as mining and tourism activities are acceptable. EBM operating areasallow for the full range of economic uses; however, resource development must workwithin the EBM framework. The EBM framework includes: (1) protecting areas ofecological and cultural heritage value; (2) applying traditional, local, and scientificknowledge to developing ecosystem-specific management targets; (3) acknowledgingaboriginal interest in the GBRF through innovative approaches to future land plan-ning and management; (4) continuing to establish new arrangements among FirstNations, governments, and stakeholders; and (5) promoting stability, certainty,and long-term resource use for local communities (BC Government 2006).

The provincial government, First Nations, and stakeholder representatives arecurrently engaged in implementing the GBRF land use decision through a complexgovernance framework established by the First Nations agreements with the prov-ince that ensure that implementation is jointly managed by the stakeholders andFirst Nations who developed the plan. The framework is made up of three typesof entities: Plan and Implementation Monitoring Committees, Land and ResourceForums, and an Ecosystem-Based Management Working Group (BC GovernmentMAL 2007). Two Plan and Implementation Committees, covering the two subre-gions of the GBRF, are comprised of stakeholders who are responsible for monitor-ing implementation of the land use plan and making recommendations on planrevisions to the Land and Resource Forums, which are comprised of First Nationsand provincial government representatives (BC Government MAL 2007). There arethree geographically based Land and Resource Forums and one central Land andResource Forum covering the entire GBRF made up of members of the threegeographically based Forums. The Land and Resource Forums provide overallmanagement direction. The Ecosystem-Based Management Working Group, whichis a multi-stakeholder technical committee jointly chaired by First Nations and theprovincial government, makes recommendations on applying ecosystem-basedmanagement (BC Government MAL 2007).

Evaluation Method

The evaluation criteria applied in the case study used the methodology that wedeveloped and previously used to evaluate the LRMP process in British Columbia.Our framework is based on an integration and enhancement of evaluation frame-works proposed by Cormick et al. (1996), Gunton et al. (1998), Innes and Booher(1999), Moote et al. (1997), and Wilson et al. (1996). Those wishing more detaileddiscussion of the evaluation framework should consult Cullen (2006), Frame et al.(2004), and McGee (2006).

The evaluation framework consists of both process and outcome criteria. The 11outcome criteria (Table 2) stem from three broad measures of success: reaching anagreement that is in the public interest, using a planning process superior to alterna-tive methods, and generating social capital benefits such as improved stakeholderrelationships. The 14 process criteria (Table 2) are based on best practices formanaging collaborative processes.

Collaborative Planning in Complex Environments 339

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 18:01 9 April 2010

Table 2. Criteria for evaluating collaborative planning

Outcome criteria Process criteria

1. Perceived as successful: The processand outcomes are perceived to besuccessful

1. Purpose and incentives: The processis driven by a shared purpose, andprovides incentives to participateand work toward consensus.

2. Agreement: The process results inan agreement that meets theinterests of stakeholders

2. Inclusive representation: All partieswith a significant interest in theissues and outcome are involvedthroughout the process.

3. Conflict reduced: The process andoutcomes reduce conflict amongstakeholders

3. Voluntary participation: The partiesparticipate voluntarily and arecommitted to the process.

4. Superior to other methods: Theprocess is superior to other decisionmethods in terms of costs andbenefits.

4. Self-design: The parties involveddesign a process to suit the specificsof the particular problem and theneeds of participants.

5. Creative and innovative: The processproduces creative and innovativeideas.

5. Clear ground rules: As the process isinitiated, a comprehensiveprocedural framework isestablished including clear terms ofreference and ground rules.

6. Knowledge, understanding, andskills: Stakeholders gainknowledge, improved skills, andbetter understanding byparticipating in process.

6. Equal opportunity and resources:The process provides for equal andbalanced opportunity for effectiveparticipation of all parties.

7. Relationships and social capital: Theprocess produces new relationshipsand social capital amongstakeholders.

7. Principled negotiation and respect:The process operates according tothe conditions of principlednegotiation, including mutualrespect, trust, and understanding.

8. Information: The process producesinformation that is useful forstakeholders.

8. Accountability: The process and itsparticipants are accountable to thebroader public, to theirconstituents, and to the processitself.

9. Second-order effects: The processproduces changes in behavior andrelationships that is useful for otherprojects outside of the process.

9. Flexible, adaptive, and creative:Flexibility is designed into theprocess to allow for adaptation andcreativity in problem solving.

10. Public interest: Outcomes of theprocess serve the public interest.

10. High-quality information: Theprocess incorporates high-qualityinformation into decision making.

11. Understanding and support ofcollaborative planning: The process

11. Time limits: Realistic milestonesand deadlines are established

(Continued )

340 D. Cullen et al.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 18:01 9 April 2010

To evaluate the GBRF process against the criteria, a survey was sent electroni-cally to all 36 members of the two planning tables (16 for the Central Coast LRMPand 20 for the North Coast LRMP). Follow-up telephone interviews were conductedwith a subset of respondents, if clarification of responses was required. The survey isdivided into five sections and contains 51 statements describing the process to testthe 14 process criteria, and 25 statements to test the 11 outcome criteria. SectionsA, B, and C evaluate the process and outcome criteria using a 4-point Likert scaleof agreement with the statements (strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat dis-agree, and strongly disagree). The responses for all statements under each criterionare averaged to report the overall degree of agreement for that criterion. Section Dhad participants rank 20 ‘‘factors for success’’ on a 4-point scale (very important,important, somewhat important, and not important). Nine open-ended questionsare contained in section E. A coding system was used to categorize open-endedresponses and then the frequency of each response was calculated. The results fromsection E are not reported here unless they provide additional insights not providedby the other sections of the survey.

Several limitations of this research method that relies on participant responses tosurvey questions should be noted (Conley and Moote 2003; Coglianese 2003; Innesand Booher 1999; Rowe 2003). First, the evaluation is based on the perceptions ofparticipants whose answers will be affected by many variables, such as their experi-ence with other processes and knowledge of planning and land use management.Respondent perceptions may not be an accurate assessment of the process. Thislimitation is partly addressed by the fact that the respondents represent a diverseand informed array of stakeholders who have participated in the land use planningprocess over many years. Second, because there is no control group, comparing CPprocesses with more traditional methods of resource planning is difficult. The com-parison with other planning models relies on respondents comparative evaluations,which may be based on limited experience. Third, assessment of the planning process

Table 2. Continued

Outcome criteria Process criteria

increases support andunderstanding of collaborativeplanning.

and managed throughout theprocess.

12. Implementation and monitoring: Theprocess and final agreement includeclear commitments toimplementation and monitoring.

13. Effective process management: Theprocess is coordinated andmanaged effectively, and in aneutral manner.

14. Independent facilitation:Throughout the process, anindependent, trained facilitator isinvolved.

Collaborative Planning in Complex Environments 341

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 18:01 9 April 2010

is based only on the views of the participants in the process, who may have a morepositive view of the outcomes because they invested in the process and hadresponsibility for the results. The views of other stakeholders who did not participateand the general public are not included in the evaluation. Finally, the survey is basedon perceptions at the time the survey was completed, which was within several weeksfollowing the announcement of the GBRF land use decision. Participant perceptionsof the process may change over time with the opportunity for more reflection. Toaddress this, we plan on undertaking additional surveys in future years to assesswhether there are any changes in results. Finally, it should be noted that the resultsare based on a sample of only two planning processes. The outcomes in these twocase studies may not be representative.

Evaluation Results

Responses were received from 31 of the 36 members of the two planning tables(response rate of 86%). The results are considered accurate within �6.6% at the95% confidence level. The percent agreement of respondents with the outcome andprocess criteria are reported in Tables 4 and 5. The percent agreement for each cri-terion is based on the average of all questions associated with that criterion. Stronglyagree and somewhat agree are combined under the agree category. The survey resultsfrom a larger survey of 17 LRMPs that were completed prior to the GBRF, and didnot use a two-tier table model, are included for comparison with the GBRF results.The larger survey is based on responses from 260 of 767 table members and has a95% confidence level of �3% (Frame et al. 2004).

The study results (Table 3) show that a majority of respondents agreed that alloutcome criteria were met. The process was perceived as successful by respondents,was considered superior to other methods, helped reduce conflict, and generatedimportant additional benefits including improved knowledge and understanding,improved relationships, better information, and second-order effects. The onlyoutcome criterion that had lower than two-thirds agreement was the criterion

Table 3. Outcome criteria results

Criterion

Percentagreement:GBRF (%)

Percentagreement:

All LRMPs (%)

1. Perceived as successful 75 622. Agreement with outcome 55 593. Conflict reduced 68 534. Superior to other methods 78 635. Creative and innovative 79 726. Knowledge, understanding, and skills 94 907. Relationships and social capital 94 828. Information 77 779. Second-order effects 76 66

10. Public interest 75 6911. Understanding and support of SDM approaches 86 78

342 D. Cullen et al.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 18:01 9 April 2010

indicating whether or not the plan addressed the needs and interests of the groupsrepresented by the respondent (55%). The fact that almost one-half of respondentsdid not agree the plan met the interests of their stakeholder group appears somewhatanomalous, considering that the two LRMPs comprising the GBRF land usedecision were both approved by consensus.

Why would a stakeholder approve a plan that did not meet the needs of thatstakeholder’s constituency? The explanation stems from how consensus-baseddecisions require compromise among stakeholders to meet the interests of all. Tomaximize the overall public interest by achieving an agreement acceptable to every-one, not all individual stakeholder groups can meet all of their individual demands.This is recognized by the stakeholders. For example, while only 55% agreed that theplan met the interests of their organizations, 75% agreed that the plan met the publicinterest. Therefore, the relatively low agreement that the plan met the interests of theindividual stakeholder groups is not necessarily a weakness. Nonetheless, the factthat only 55% of the signatories to the plan felt that the plan met the interests of theirgroup illustrates an important caution: Consensus agreement does not necessarilymean enthusiastic support.

Comparing the GBRF survey results with those from the other LRMPs indi-cates the GBRF two-tier model was perceived as superior to the one-tier approachapplied in other LRMPs for 5 of 11 outcome criteria: perceived as successful, conflictreduced, superior to other methods, relationships and social capital, and second-order effects. For these criteria, the difference in percentage agreement exceededthe combined margin of error of the two surveys (10%). The GBRF did not receivea lower rating, greater than the margin of error, for any criterion.

The GBRF plan also scored well on the process criteria (Table 4). A majority ofrespondents agreed that all process criteria were met, and 10 of 15 process criteria

Table 4. Process criteria results

Process criterion

Percentagreement:GBRF (%)

Percentagreement:

All LRMPs (%)

1. Purpose and incentives 83 802. Inclusive representation 63 663. Voluntary participation and commitment 77 724. Self-design of process by participants 71 635. Clear ground rules 79 716. Equal opportunity and resources 60 567. Principled negotiation and respect 75 638. Accountability to public and constituents 66 569. Flexible, adaptive, and creative 73 72

10. High-quality information 63 6411. Time limits 68 5812. Implementation and monitoring 64 5913. Effective process management 76 6914. Independent facilitation 82 7515. First Nations involvement 71 N=A

Collaborative Planning in Complex Environments 343

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 18:01 9 April 2010

had more than two-thirds agreement. The process criteria with less than two-thirdsagreement were: inclusive representation, equal opportunity and resources, high-quality information, accountability, and commitment to implementation. Supportfor the innovative approach to involving First Nations using the two-tier modelreceived 71% agreement, based on an average of three questions. However, individ-ual results on the three questions pertaining to First Nations involvement showedvariations. Specifically, 87% of respondents agreed that First Nations had a signifi-cant impact on the outcome, 71% were satisfied with the way First Nations wereinvolved, and 61% agreed that First Nations roles were clearly defined. The compari-son between the GBRF process and other LRMPs shows that GBRF scored higherin all process criteria except one (inclusive representation). None of the differences,however, exceed the combined margin of error of the two surveys. Agreement thatthe innovative Coast Information Team (CIT) worked well was only 31%. Theprincipal complaint with the CIT was that information was not provided in timelyfashion and was not peer reviewed as requested.

In analyzing the results, consideration was given to whether there was any dif-ference in responses between the First Nations and non-First Nations participants.A comparison of results was made between First Nation and non-First Nationresponses to the 76 statements testing the 25 criteria. The comparison indicated thatthere were significant differences between First Nation and non-First Nation respon-dents on 13 statements relating to 10 of the 25 criteria (Table 5). First Nationsrespondents (66.7%) did not perceive the GBRF process to be as successful as thenon-First Nations (95.8%) respondents. Further, fewer First Nations participants(33.3%) agreed that CP methods were superior to other planning approaches whencompared to non-First Nations (89.4%). First Nations did not agree as strongly(77.8%) as non-First Nations respondents (100%) that the process generated newrelationships or social capital. Further, First Nations felt fewer second-order effectswere generated (43.8%), compared to non-First Nations (87.0%).

There were also significant differences between First Nations and non-FirstNations respondents on process criteria. Only 50% of First Nations respondentsindicated they were fully committed to making the process work, compared to100% of non-First Nations participants. Second, only 37.5% of First Nations agreedthat they had sufficient training to participate in the process, compared to 95.7%agreement by non-First Nations. Third, fewer First Nations participants (50%) feltthe ground rules were clear, compared to non-First Nations participants (85.4%).Of specific note, only 33.3% of First Nations respondents felt their role was clear,while 95.8% of non-First Nations participants indicated the First Nations role waswell defined. Fourth, First Nations participants (33.3%) did not believe a solidframework for implementation and monitoring of plan table recommendationswas created. However, non-First Nations (70.8%) indicated that implementationand monitoring recommendations were acceptable. The First Nations respondents(55.6%) showed greater support for the data provided by the CIT than did non-FirstNations participants (17.4%). Interestingly, even though First Nations were given astronger role by virtue of participating in the separate government to governmenttable, there was not a statistically significant difference in the level of support(71%) between First Nations and non-First Nations with the role in which FirstNations were involved in the process. This suggests that non-First Nations stake-holders accepted that First Nations should have a more influential role in theplanning process based on their aboriginal rights and titles.

344 D. Cullen et al.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 18:01 9 April 2010

Table 5. Differences between First Nations and non-First Nations respondents

Criterion Survey question

Percent agreement (%)

FirstNation

Non-FirstNation

Perceived assuccessful

First Nations’ participationmade a significantdifference in the outcomeof the LRMP process

66.7 95.8

Superior to othermethods

I=my organizations’interests have beenaccommodated betterthrough the LRMPprocess than they wouldhave been through othermeans.

33.3 89.4

Relationships andsocial capital

I have better workingrelationships with otherparties involved in landuse planning as a result ofthe LRMP process

77.8 100

Contacts I acquiredthrough my participationin the LRMP process areuseful to me and=or mysector=organization

77.8 100

Second-order effects I have seen changes inbehaviors and actions asa result of the process

50.0 87.5

I am aware of spin-offpartnerships orcollaborative activities ornew organizations thatarose as a result of theprocess

37.5 86.4

Understanding=support for CPprocesses

I believe that consensusbased processes are aneffective way of makingland and resource usedecisions

55.6 91.7

Voluntaryparticipation andcommitment

I was fully committed tomaking the process work

50 100

Equal opportunityand resources

I had or received sufficienttraining to participateeffectively

37.5 95.7

(Continued )

Collaborative Planning in Complex Environments 345

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 18:01 9 April 2010

Although the reasons for these significant differences between First Nationsrequires more in-depth analysis, open-ended results and follow-up discussions withsome First Nation representatives indicated that First Nations did not perceivethe need for First Nations collaboration with other stakeholders in land usedecisions affecting First Nations territory. Instead, First Nations tended to viewthemselves as level of government that should deal directly with other governments,not with other stakeholders.

Factors for Success

The results indicate that the GBRF process was successful in meeting the outcomecriteria. An important question is what factors led to this successful outcome. Toanswer this question, a list of 20 criteria that may affect success was developed basedon a literature review (Frame et al. 2004). Respondents were asked to rate these fac-tors for success using a 4-point Likert scale (not important, somewhat important,important, and very important). Respondents could add additional criteria that theythought were important. The results show that all 20 criteria were ranked as impor-tant to very important (Figure 2). This result indicates that collaborative planning isa complex process requiring fulfillment of a large range of criteria in order to achievesuccess. The GBRF was successful because all these criteria were met. Further, theability of conflicted stakeholders to meet outside of the process through the JointSolutions Project to resolve conflicts, and the provision of significant funding forsustainable development projects to ease plan implementation, were also helpful inreaching agreement.

Table 5. Continued

Criterion Survey question

Percent agreement (%)

FirstNation

Non-FirstNation

Clear ground rules First Nations’ roles wereclearly defined

33.3 75

The procedural groundrules were clearly defined

66.7 95.8

High-qualityinformation

The Coast InformationTeam provided highquality scientific andsocial information to theplanning table

55.6 17.4

Implementation andmonitoring

The table developed a clearstrategy for planimplementation

33.3 70.8

Note. This table includes responses to only those questions where there was a statisticallysignificant difference in the response between First Nations and non-First Nations respon-dents. Differences were identified based on a 95% confidence level using the Mann–WhitneyU nonparametric procedure for comparing medians.

346 D. Cullen et al.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 18:01 9 April 2010

Conclusions

Collaborative planning has emerged as an increasingly popular planning modelcapable of addressing diverse stakeholder interests and conflict in natural resourceplanning. British Columbia provides a particularly challenging planning environ-ment characterized by complex ecological systems, conflict among diverse stake-holder groups over competing interests, and major legal and cultural differencesbetween one group—First Nations—and other stakeholders. To address these chal-lenges, British Columbia developed an innovative two-tiered model of collaborativeplanning. At the core of this model is an attempt to address the unique circumstanceof First Nations, with their distinct aboriginal rights and land claims, compared toother stakeholders.

Assessing the long-run success of the GBRF plan awaits further study at keyimplementation milestones to determine whether the plan is meeting its goals. How-ever, the evaluation of the process for preparing the plan indicates that the two-tiermodel used in the GBRF was largely successful in meeting key outcome goals. Aconsensus agreement on major changes to land use and resource management wasreached in a very challenging planning environment. Further, this agreement wassupported as being in the public interest by three-quarters of respondents and theprocess generated important social capital benefits. Elevating the status of a majorparticipant group—First Nations—resulted in better outcome criteria scores relativeto other LRMP processes that used a one-tier process and was superior to otherLRMP processes by successfully engaging a major group—First Nations—thathad not been previously engaged. Also, stakeholders accepted the unique status ofFirst Nations even though it appears inconsistent with the principle of equalrepresentation. The GBRF land use decision represents a landmark in BC as the first

Figure 2. Comparative importance of factors for success in the GBRF land use process.

Collaborative Planning in Complex Environments 347

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 18:01 9 April 2010

plan to achieve full engagement of First Nations in developing a consensus outcome.These achievements highlight the effectiveness and flexibility of collaborative plan-ning in adapting to complex social, ecological, and institutional environments.Further, all parties provided strong endorsement for the GBRF approach by statingthat they would participate in a similar process again.

While the achievements of the collaborative planning model are impressive, theprocess did have limitations: First Nations were less supportive of the collaborativeprocess and they were not convinced of the superiority of collaborative planningrelative to alternative means of meeting their interests, such as direct government-to-government negotiations. The process could also have been improved by providing aclearer definition of First Nations’ role in Table I relative to Table II. Anothercaution is provided by the surprisingly low agreement that the plan met the interestsof each stakeholder group, even though all stakeholders agreed to the plan.Although this is in part due to the nature of compromise necessary to achieveagreement, it shows that it would be imprudent to equate consensus agreement withenthusiastic support for the outcome.

In the end, planning processes should be evaluated against feasible alternatives.Given the circumstances, the two-tier collaborative planning model applied in theGBRF appears to be the only successful approach to date for engaging First Nationsalong with other stakeholders and meeting the challenges of land use planning in theprovince of British Columbia. Although the evaluation of the two-tier process inBritish Columbia is based on only two planning processes that may have been influ-enced by fortuitous events and may not be representative, a two-tier model is clearlyworthy of consideration as a viable option in other jurisdictions characterized bycomplex stakeholder environments.

References

British Columbia Government. 1994. Planning for sustainability: Improving the planningdelivery system of British Columbia. The provincial land use strategy, Vol. 2. Victoria,Canada: Queen’s Printer.

British Columbia Government. 2004. Introduction to land use planning. http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/lrmp/data/lup_brochure/index.htm (accessed 10 May 2006).

British Columbia Government. 2005. North coast land and resource management plan: Finalrecommendations. February. http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/ske/lrmp/ncoast/index.htm(accessed 28 August 2006).

British Columbia Government. 2006. News release: Province announces a new vision for coastalBC. http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2006AL0002-000066.htm(accessed 15 May 2006).

British Columbia Government, Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. 2007.Guide to the treaty making process. http://www.gov.bc.ca/arr/treaty/faq.html. (accessed20 September 2007).

British Columbia Government, Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. 2007. News release:Central and north coast one year later. http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2007AL0003-000103.htm (accessed 15 May 2007).

Caton Campbell, M., and D. W. Floyd. 1996. Thinking critically about environmentalmediation. J. Plan. Literature 10(3):235–247.

Central Coast LRMP (CCLRMP). 2004. Report of consensus recommendations to provincialgovernment and First Nations. http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/cr/resource_mgmt/lrmp/cencoast.htm (accessed 19 July 2005).

348 D. Cullen et al.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 18:01 9 April 2010

Coglianese, C. 2003. Is satisfaction success? Evaluating public participation inregulatory policymaking. In The promise and performance of environmental conflictresolution, eds. R. O’Leary and L. B. Bingham, 69–86. Washington, DC: Resources forthe Future.

Conley, A., and M. Moote. 2003. Evaluating collaborative natural resource management.Society Nat. Resources 16:371–386.

Cormick, G., N. Dale, P. Edmond, S. Sigurdson, and B. Stuart. 1996. Building consensus for asustainable future: Putting principles into practice. Ottawa, Canada: National Roundtableon Environment and Economy.

Cullen, A. 2006. The Central Coast land and resource management plan: An evaluation ofcollaborative planning in British Columbia. MRM report 397. Burnaby, Canada: SimonFraser University.

Donovan, A., and J. Griffith. 2003. Duty of business to consult with and accommodate FirstNations. The Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia. http://www.cle.bc.ca/CLE/Practice+Desk/Practice+Articles/Collection/02-app-dutytoconsult.htm (accessed 14 January 2006).

Frame, T., T. Gunton, and J. C. Day. 2004. The role of collaboration in environmentalmanagement: An evaluation of land and resource planning in British Columbia.J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 47(1):59–82.

Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gunton, T. 1991. Crown land planning in British Columbia: Managing for multiple use. InOur living legacy: Proceedings of a symposium on biological diversity, eds. M. A. Fenger,E. H. Miller, J. A. Johnson, and E. J. R. Williams, 275–293. Victoria, Canada: RoyalBritish Columbia Museum.

Gunton, T. 1998. Forest land use policy in British Columbia: Dynamics of change. Environ-ments 25(2=3):8–14.

Gunton, T., and J. C. Day. 2003. The theory and practice of collaborative planning in resourceand environmental management. Environments 31(2):31–45.

Gunton, T., J. C. Day, and P. Williams. 1998. Land and water planning in BC in the 1990s:Lessons on more inclusive approaches. Environments 25(2 and 3):1–7.

Gunton, T., J. C. Day, and P. Williams (Eds.). 2003a. Evaluating collaborative planning: TheBritish Columbia experience (Special issue). Environments 31(3):1–86.

Gunton, T., J. C. Day, and P. Williams (Eds.). 2003b. Evaluating collaborative planning: TheNorth American experience (Special issue). Environments 31(2):1–104.

Healey, P. 1997. Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London:Macmillan.

Healey, P. 1998. Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to planning.Environ. Plan. A 30(9):1531–1546.

Innes, J. E. 2005. Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics. Plan. Theory 3(1):5–20.Innes, J. E., and D. Booher. 1999. A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. J. Am.

Plan. Assoc. 65(4):412–423.McGee, G. 2006. Evaluating collaborative planning: A case study of the North Coast Land and

Resource Management Plan. MRM report 399. Burnaby, Canada: Simon Fraser Univer-sity, School of Resource and Environmental Management.

Moote, M., M. P. McClaran, and D. Chickering. 1997. Theory in practice: Applying partici-patory democracy theory to land use planning. Environ. Manage. 21(6):877–889.

Rainforest Solutions Project. 2006. The roadmap to change: A 2006 progress report on theGreat Bear Rainforest agreements. http://www.savethegreatbear.org/files/finalreport.pdf. (accessed 25 February 2007).

Rowe, A. 2003. Evaluation of environmental dispute resolution programs. In The promiseand performance of environmental conflict resolution, eds. R. O’Leary and L. Bingham,175–191. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

Collaborative Planning in Complex Environments 349

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 18:01 9 April 2010

Selin, D. W., and D. Chavez. 1995. Developing a collaborative model for environmentalplanning and management. Environ. Manage. 19(2):189–196.

Selin, S. W., M. A. Schuett, and D. Carr. 2000. Modeling stakeholder perceptions ofcollaborative initiative effectiveness. Society Nat. Resources 13:735–745.

Susskind, L., M. van der Wansem, and A. Ciccarelli. 2003. Mediating land use disputes: Prosand cons. Environments 31(2):39–59.

Weidner, H. 1998. Alternative dispute resolution in environmental conflicts: Experiences in 12countries. Berlin, Germany: Edition Sigma.

Wilson, A., M. Roseland, and J. C. Day. 1996. Share decision-making and public landplanning: An evaluation of the Vancouver Island Regional CORE process. Environments23(2):69–87.

Wilson, J., B. Cashore, G. Hoberg, M. Howlett, and J. Rayner. 2001. In search of sustainabil-ity: British Columbia forest policy in the 1990s. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.

Wondolleck, J., and S. Yaffee. 2000. Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovations innatural resource management. Washington, DC: Island Press.

350 D. Cullen et al.

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 18:01 9 April 2010