Consensus processes in land use planning in British Columbia: the nature of success
Date
2018-08-02
Authors
Jackson, Laurie Skuba
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
The general goal of this research is to address the question, what makes consensus
work in resource management decision-making? Its purpose is to identify success factors
for employing the consensus decision-making model specifically in land use planning; to
examine the models incepted by the government of British Columbia during the period
1992-1995; and to investigate the application and effectiveness of the models as actually
employed in integrated resource planning in British Columbia. The specific objective is to
develop a general diagnostic framework for evaluation, based on indicators and success
factors derived from a review of pertinent literature; from interviews with stakeholder
participants in these processes; through review of government documentation, and through
interviews with government officials who design and manage those processes.
Four general success factors for public involvement were derived from the
literature: Integrity; Explicit Objectives; Early Stakeholder Identification; and Strategic
Communication. These are then examined in this research in the context of consensus.
Government documentation provides a historical background of the development of
integrated resource management in the province. It is shown that British Columbia’s
resource-based economy is cyclic and it is postulated that environmental policies and
proactive planning tend to swing with economic cycles. Increasing environmental conflict
in the 1990’s led the governments of the day to embrace innovative planning methods,
including provisions for public involvement at the degree of shared decision-making, or
consensus processes with affected stakeholders. Consensus was employed at the regional
level with the establishment of the Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE) in
1992, and even earlier at the sub-regional scale with Land and Resource Management
Planning; and at the community level with Local Resource Use Plans, administered by the
Ministry of Forests. No provision for evaluating these processes was outlined; existing
evaluations consisted of summative reports prepared by process managers or facilitators.
Interviews with policy and senior managers of government contributed another
success factor to be tested, that of Management Style. Additional success factors were
compiled through a pilot study, government reports, and previous evaluations, such as the
CORE Vancouver Island survey. In-depth interviews were conducted with 50 managers
and participants of consensus processes at all three levels, in eight planning regions of the
province. As interviews of participants proceeded, any new factors which emerged were
also added to the list below.
Integrity of process,
Commitment of participants,
Openness,
Explicit objectives,
Early stakeholder identification,
Strategic communication,
Facilitator,
Solid information,
Clear policy guidelines,
Prescreening participants,
Training,
Neutral chair/process mgr.,
Interpersonal dynamic,
Clear operating principles,
Relationships,
Representative of constituency,
Funding,
Continuity of participants,
Local participants,
Meeting facility,
Plain language,
Size of group,
Budget, support of ministry,
Respondents rated, defined and discussed these factors, and answered general
questions regarding success of consensus processes. From qualitative and quantitative
analysis, using the spreadsheet program Excel, the following indicators (the top quartile)
were determined to be “critical” to the success of a consensus planning process: Integrity;
Solid Information; Facilitator, Commitment of Participants; Explicit Objectives; Training;
Strategic Communication; and Government Support. Based on an analysis of the
definitions and comments of participants, an evaluation framework was developed for
consensus processes in land use planning. This includes diagnostic questions, followed by
further considerations and recommendations for some critical indicators.
The significance of this study will be in the short term to planners of consensus
public involvement processes; in the long run as part of an adaptive model of contemporary
resource management decision-making.
Description
Keywords
Land use, British Columbia, Planning, Government policy