Turley, Dominic2024-08-152024-08-1519961996https://hdl.handle.net/1828/19952This thesis analyzes and compares regional land use processes on Vancouver Island and the East Kootenays. Each process consisted of an unsuccessful consensus-based approach and a later successful government plan. The Vancouver Island Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE) process failed miserably. The major reason was the lack of a transition strategy to offset the significant economic losses of several bargaining sectors. In the end a land use plan for Vancouver Island was determined through a political process. The East Kootenay CORE process benefited from a significant transition strategy and minimal economic consequences, but still could not get agreement on the most contentious issues. As with Vancouver Island, the government used a political process to get agreement where CORE could not. The thesis concludes that the consensus approach attempted by CORE was based on literature that was overly optimistic, tautological and of limited utility in the re­allocative land use planning that CORE was attempting. In a re-distributive setting, where one side's loss is another's gain, it is impossible to recast the dynamics into a situation where all sides gain. The government processes were better at taking this into account and were able to get successful deals using classical bargaining techniques.149 pagesAvailable to the World Wide WebThesis