UNDERSTANDING LAND AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESSES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA: A QUALITATIVE APROACH

by

MICHAEL MASCARENHAS

B.Sc., Brock University, 1986

B.B.E., Brock University, 1990    

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTERS OF SCIENCE

in

THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

(Department of Forest Resources Management)

We accept this thesis as conforming

to the required standard    

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

June 1999

Michael Mascarenhas, 1999        

ABSTRACT

The introduction of public participation into land and resource management planning processes in British Columbia is portentous in terms of its scope and involvement. This program, known as the Provincial Land Use Strategy, is based on the concept of consensus or shared decision-making. This planning approach has required a major commitment of time and use of resources, not only by the provincial government but also by the individuals involved in these processes. Yet, at the same time, it has been a tremendous challenge and struggle, and many questions still

remain unanswered. This research seeks to explore and understand people’s views in public participation and land and resource management planning processes through their own unique experiences and associations. It is hoped that this research can lead to a better understanding of the way these planning processes appear to these people, and through that insight, lead to improvements in practice.

This research uses alternative dispute resolution theory, conflict resolution, and human dimensions research (HDR) frameworks as an analytical model. This study utilises a qualitative case study approach, in-depth interviewing, a rigorous approach to data collection and analysis, and appropriate verification procedures (Creswell 1998).

Qualitative analysis of the data revealed three overarching themes reflecting important issues or concerns to participants: legitimacy, efficacy, and efficiency. These themes were identified as essential planning components that contribute to either the promotion or preclusion of these planning processes. The recognition of these themes and the factors that comprise them elucidates the complexities of the concerns and issues of participants regarding land and resource management planning processes in British Columbia. It provides a comprehensiveness not identified in other studies and highlights categories of concern that need to be probed and examined further. Finally these criteria presents an alternative measure to some of the traditional approaches used to evaluate similar public dispute processes.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT *

LIST OF FIGURES *

LIST OF TABLES *

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS *

1 RESEARCH PROBLEM *

1.1. Introduction *

1.2. Purpose and Objective *

1.3. Background *

1.4. Thesis Overview *

2 LITERATURE REVIEW *

2.1. Deliberative Democracy and Discourse Literature *

2.2. Alternative Dispute Resolution Literature *

2.3. Human Dimensions Research Literature *

3 RESEARCH DESIGN *

3.1. Research Questions *

3.1.1. The Interview Question *

3.1.2. Subquestions *

3.1.3. Probes *

3.2. Focusing on the Specific Setting, Population, and Phenomenon *

3.3. Sampling *

3.4. Ethical Issues *

4 DATA COLLECTION METHODS *

4.1. In-depth Interviewing *

5 RECORDING, MANAGING, & ANALYSING DATA RESOURCES *

5.1. Recording *

5.2. Managing *

5.3. Data Analysis *

5.4. Coding *

6 METHODS FOR VERIFICATION *

6.1. Criteria to Operationalise Verification *

6.1.1. Triangulation *

6.1.2. Peer Review and Debriefing *

6.1.3. Clarifying Researcher Bias *

6.1.4. Writing with Detailed and Thick Descriptions *

7 RESULTS *

7.1. Legitimacy *

7.1.1. Representativeness *

7.1.2. Role of Government *

7.1.3. Consensus *

7.1.4. Fairness *

7.2. Efficacy *

7.2.1. People *

7.2.2. Role of Government *

7.2.3. Information *

7.3. Efficiency *

7.3.1. Time *

7.3.2. Structure *

7.3.3. Information *

7.4. Numeric Summary *

8 CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS *

8.1. Legitimacy, Efficacy & Efficiency *

8.2. Implications *

8.3. Summary *

8.4. Limitations and Concerns *

8.5. Further Research *

REFERNCES *

APPENDIX 1 *

Interview Question *

APPENDIX 2 *

Peer Review & Debriefing *

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Strategic Land-Use Plans in British Columbia *

Figure 2. Sample Interview Protocol *

Figure 3. Legitimacy Typology *

Figure 4. Efficacy Typology *

Figure 5. Efficiency Typology *

Figure 6. Draft Legitimacy Typology *

Figure 7. Draft Efficacy Typology *

Figure 8. Draft Efficiency Typology *

               

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. CORE and LRMP Plans *

Table 2. Summary of Public Planning Process Evaluations *

Table 3. Relationship to Forests Quota Matrix *

Table 4. General Data Analysis Strategies by Authors *

Table 5. Category-Code Formulation *

Table 6. Data Aggregation Categories Codes *

Table 7. Data Analysis and Representation *

Table 8. Techniques That Establish the Trustworthiness of a Study *

Table 9. Verification Criteria and Description *

Table 10. Respondent Involvement in CORE or LRMP Processes *

Table 11. Components, Categories & Issues of Legitimacy *

Table 12. Components & Issues of Efficacy *

Table 13. Components & Issues of Efficiency *

Table 14. Numeric Summary of Themes and Components *

Table 15. Peer Review & Debriefing Sample Quote *

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I gratefully acknowledge the research funding provided by Forest Renewal of British Columbia. I would also like to extend warmest thanks to all of the participants who gave generously of their time by participating in this study. I would also like to thank the members of my thesis committee: Dr. David Tindall, Dr. Stephen Sheppard and Peter Boothroyd, for their guidance

and commitment to my development and research. I would like to also extend special thanks Loraine Lavallee, who was instrumental in my development and training as a graduate student and researcher. Finally, I would like to acknowledge my wife, Kelly Grindstaff, for her steadfast assistance, support, and encouragement    

1 RESEARCH PROBLEM

1.1. Introduction

For nearly twenty years, resource managers and scholars have been employing and examining various alternative dispute resolution strategies to resolve forest land management disputes that are commonly associated with forest policy making and implementation. In British Columbia this trend was exemplified by the introduction of the Land Use Strategy for British Columbia in 1992 by the Commission on Resources and Environment. (CORE 1992)

This program is based on the concept of a consensus or shared decision-making approach to land use planning and management. In this approach, decision-making shifts, for a set period of time, to a negotiating team which includes those with authority and those who are affected by a decision, to seek an outcome that accommodates rather than compromises the interests of all those concerned (CORE 1992). This land and resource planning process is portentous in terms of its scope and involvement. Yet, at the same time, it has been a tremendous challenge and struggle, and many questions still remain unanswered. These processes have been costly in terms of both the time and commitment asked by the participants and also in terms of the government resources that go into them. Getting feedback from these individuals as to whether the processes are working or how can we make them better is important and useful.

This research seeks to explore and understand people’s views and concerns on public participation and land and resource management planning processes in British Columbia. In order to understand the context of these perceptions, we need to elicit and explore the perspectives, concerns and issues of constituents involved in and affected by these planning processes. Human Dimensions Research (HDR) is an emerging field within the framework of natural resources management that places a growing importance on the behaviours, attitudes and needs of people affected by such land use decisions and planning processes (Ewert 1996). This HDR study uses in-depth interviewing, a rigorous approach to data collection and analysis and appropriate verification.

1.2. Purpose and Objective

As suggested by Maxwell (1996), I will distinguish between three different kinds of purposes for doing this study: personal purposes, practical purposes, and research purposes.

Personal purposes are those that have motivated me to do this study. They include furthering my curiosity about public involvement, land and resource management planning and its decision-making process in British Columbia. Another personal purpose was to fulfil my desire to engage and operationalise qualitative research within the discipline of HDR. Finally, there is the simply purpose of advancing my career and expertise in this area.

According to Maxwell (1996), practical purposes are focused on accomplishing something, meeting some need, changing some situation, or achieving some goal. There has been a trend noted in the democratic and public participation literature and witnessed in recent social movements to encourage public involvement into the public decision-making process. However, what constitutes effective public participation has become an increasingly crucial and still unanswered question in the land-use debate. Also, the adoption of these consensus decision-making processes has demanded a major commitment and use of financial and human resources, not only from the provincial government but also from the individuals involved in these processes. The practical purpose of this research is to elicit and explore the perceived concerns and issues of constituents involved in and affected by these land and resource planning processes. It is hoped that this information will lead to a better understanding of the way these planning processes appear to these people and through that insight lead to improvements in these planning processes.

Finally, according to Maxwell (1996), research purposes are focused on understanding something, gaining some insight into what is going on and why this is happening. Understanding the meaning, for participants, of these planning processes, through their own accounts and experiences was an important goal for me in this research. Also, understanding the particular context within which respondents participate, and the influence that this context has on how they perceive these processes, was essential to this qualitative research.

The objective of this research study is to explore and understand people’s views and concerns on public participation and land and resource management planning processes in British Columbia through their own unique experiences and associations. It is hoped that this research can lead to a better understanding of the way these planning processes appear to these people and through that insight lead to improvements in practice

1.3. Background

Up until 1992, Crown land planning in BC was within the domain of the Ministry of Forests (MoF). In Canada, Crown land is analogous to public land. It is defined as land, or water lots, owned by the provincial or federal government that is exempt from taxation if not occupied. Crown land represents 91.7% of British Columbia's land base (Tamblyn 1996). Under the MOF, land planning took the form of sub-regional plans known as timber supply area (TSA) plans. According to Vance (1990), these regional plans were unstructured, informal, and generated little documentation. Furthermore, planning under this regime accented timber values over all other values and provided little provision for public input (Wilson 1995).

During this period of unstructured timber planning, conflicts over forest land planning reached unprecedented levels in the form of valley-by-valley conflicts, blockades, arrests, and boycotts. These conflicts ranged in expressions from apathy and stonewalling to disruptive behaviour and anger culminating in civil disobedience on the part of the public (Dorcey 1994). With more than 10,000 protesters during the summer of 1993, of which more than 800 were arrested, Clayoquot Sound marked the largest blockade in Canada’s history (M’Gonigle and Parfitt 1994). This exhibition of civil disobedience was foreshadowed in 1994, by a mass rally of 15,000 forest workers and allies on the provincial legislature in Victoria. These disputes divided communities, segregated stakeholders, increased costs, reduced investment in the province and resulted in numerous time-consuming delays and appeals (Duffy 1991). More recently, during the summer

of 1998, British Columbians witnessed similar logging blockades and pro-forestry demonstrations in Squamish and the Slocan Valley. These events provide ample testimony of a discontented public.

In 1992 the provincial government established the Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE), an independent advisory body to cabinet, to develop an improved land-use planning system for BC. This improved system would put an end to the valley-by-valley conflicts, blockades, arrests, and boycotts that typified the planning regime of the past decade. To this end, CORE created the Provincial Land Use Strategy for BC and transformed the policy framework to be a more inclusive and co-operative decision-making process. The creation of CORE marked the first real change in public land planning in BC. Its underlying hypothesis was that reforming the decision-making process would improve land use decisions (Wilson et al 1996).

British Columbia is divided into 5 Regional Land Use Planning Areas and 18 Land and Resource Management Areas. CORE was asked by cabinet to begin regional planning processes in four conflict riddled regions of the province; Vancouver Island, Cariboo-Chilcotin, East Kootenay and West-Kootenay-Boundary (CORE 1994). These regional planning processes represent the first formal introduction of consensus-seeking negotiations and shared decision-making to land and resource planning in British Columbia. Amongst the invited stakeholders were industry representative, community groups, local governments, environmental and recreation groups and the provincial government. First Nations were also encouraged to participate but typically abstained from the process (CORE 1994). The last of the four CORE planning processes were completed in October of 1994. CORE was subsequently disbanded (Government of British Columbia 1999).

Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) constitute the sub-regional component within the Provincial land-use policy strategy. The LRMP is an integrated resource planning process used to provide management direction for all Crown land, including Provincial forests and Crown aquatic land, in British Columbia. Its objective is to consider all resource values in the planning process which requires public participation, interagency co-ordination and consensus based land and resource management decisions (CORE 1994B).

More than half of the province is now covered by completed land use plans. These include land and resource management plans for Dawson Creek, Robson Valley, Fort St. James, Prince George, Kamloops, Kispiox, Vanderhoof, Bulkley, Fort St. John and Fort Nelson. It is expected that the first pass of LRMPs will have been completed in the province by 2002. Figure 1 is a map illustrating the boundaries of strategic land use plans in British Columbia (Government of British Columbia 1999).

Figure 1. Strategic Land-Use Plans in British Columbia                

                                                                                           

   

(Government of British Columbia 1999)

Table 1 provides a list of all regional and sub-regional land use plans in British Columbia. The plans denoted in bold text have been completed and approved as of April 1999 (Government of British Columbia 1999).

Table 1. CORE and LRMP Plans

Regional Plans   Land and Resource Management Plans

A Vancouver Island 1 Fort Nelson 10 Robson Valley

B Cariboo/Chilcotin 2 Fort St. John 11 Kamloops

C West Kootenay-Boundary

3 Dawson Creek 12 Lakes

D East Kootenay 4 Prince George 13 Okanagan-Shuswap

    5 Fort St. James 14 Lillooet

    6 Vanderhoof 15 Central Coast

    7 Bulkley 16 Mackenzie

    8 Kalum 17 Queen Charlotte Islands

    9 Kispiox 18 Cassiar Iskut-Stikine

 

1.4. Thesis Overview

This thesis is divided into eight chapters. The introductory chapter provides an overview and background to land and resource planning in British Columbia and describes the current planning framework. This chapter also defines the research purposes and objectives. In the second chapter, a broad overview of deliberative democracy and discourse, conflict resolution and human dimensions research literatures provides a rationale for eliciting and understanding people’s views and concerns regarding these land and management planning processes. Chapters three through six describe the research design, data collection and analysis used in the research. Chapter seven uses two formats to illustrate the findings of this case study: thematic descriptions with numeric summaries and code cluster diagrams with participant quotes. The eighth chapter eight concludes this study identifying relative implications based on the results of Chapter VII.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

There has been a trend noted in the democratic and public participation literature to encourage public involvement into the public decision-making process. However, despite these prevalent trends, and the recognition of the value of public involvement in land and resource management planning processes, there still exists information gaps and significant uncertainties regarding the roles for citizens and managers in these processes.

This chapter explores public involvement in land and resource management planning processes from three relevant disciplines within the literature: deliberative democracy and discourse, alternative dispute resolution and conflict management theory, and human dimensions research. The argument is presented that although this literature is complex and complete in a general sense it does not contribute to our understanding of specific concerns and issues of constituents involved in and affected by these processes. The need to explore and understand the way these planning processes appear to these people is essential to a better understanding of the goals and characteristics of alternative dispute resolution and land and resource management planning processes.

2.1. Deliberative Democracy and Discourse Literature

The first category involves the pursuit of broad democratic goals, democracy in general and democratic decision-making. This category defines public participation as a means to pursue the goals of political equality (Tipple and Wellman 1989); participation as a way of holding elected officials accountable (Koch 1980, Sadler 1979); and participation as a way of moving from representative democracy to participatory democracy (Bohman and Rehg 1997, Dryzek 1990 & 1997, Gutman & Thompson 1996, Gundersen 1995, Wellman and Tipple 1990).

Parenteau suggests that legitimacy for public participation has been argued and developed through fundamental debates over democracy in general and democratic decision-making in particular. These debates have been based on two long-opposed theories of democracy, direct democracy and representative democracy. The theory of direct democracy claims that those most affected by a decision should participate directly in the decision-making process. The other is the theory of elected or representative democracy, which is based on the delegation of power. This theory holds that elected representatives are entitled to make all decisions themselves, as they have been elected for this purpose (Parenteau 1988).The battle for a greater degree of public involvement in decision-making basically revolves around the wide scope of discretionary power given to elected officials in a representative democracy. This is somewhat exasperated by the typical "closed-door" decision-making process used by governments by which conflicts over policy options are often resolved (Sadler 1979). The evolution of the public participation movement, therefore, may be seen as an attempt to interject a broader range of social values into a decision-making system that is traditionally closed to the general public (Sadler 1979). It also introduces an element of legitimacy and fairness and perhaps justification to government decision-making (Parenteau 1988). Furthermore this literature is consistent with trends in North America to decentralise government control and give more autonomy, responsibility and liability to local people, interest groups and stakeholders.

Despite these prevalent trends there still exist information gaps and significant uncertainties regarding the specific roles for citizens and managers in these processes. As Hanna Cortner (1996) points out, "it is true that participation seldom meets the citizen’s goal of affecting decision-making, or the manager’s goals of obtaining support for a plan or project or minimising conflict" (p. 170).

2.2. Alternative Dispute Resolution Literature

According to Cortner (1997), this category is largely agenda related. Included in this category are rationales such as effecting change within government organisations (Paehlke 1987, Sadler 1979); redistributing political power (Arnstein 1969, Parenteau, 1988) and conflict resolution (Bercovitch 1984, Brenneis, K et al. 1990, and Wondolleck 1988) (Cortner 1997). For the purposes of this research I have concentrated and focused on relevant literature specific to land and management planning processes in British Columbia. I felt the specific nature and scope of these planning processes warranted this decision.

The bulk of conflict resolution evaluation in British Columbia is composed of numerous case studies of specific planning processes. This failure to systematically evaluate public participation on a cross-sectional or provincial basis has seriously affected the generalisability of this research (Hessing and Howett 1997). As a result, the criteria by which these processes were evaluated are too specific to capture the many different views and concerns associated with public participation and planning processes, more generally.

Furthermore, the bulk of previous conflict resolution research in British Columbia evaluates the decision-making process against specific design criteria such as reaching consensus, fairness, efficiency and stability. For example, Tamblyn (1996) in his evaluation of the Kamloops LRMP process, concluded that the process was a success because it reached consensus and was subsequently accepted by cabinet. Other research, however, (see Wondolleck and Yaffee 1994) indicates that success is not necessarily related just to the substantive outcomes of the planning effort. That is, people tend to view success in broader terms than simply "getting a plan done". Definitions of success may include such things as representation in planning, political or social acceptability of the plan, improved relationships with others and agencies, the amount of learning that may occur, and "ownership" of the plan by non-agency personnel (Wondolleck and Yaffee 1994).

In addition, fairness will mean different things to different stakeholders. For example, it may not be fair that an industry stakeholder be paid to participate in the process while a community group stakeholder volunteers. Or it may not be fair that important issues such as tenure duration, cut levels, and restrictions on protected areas, be constrained by government and as a result, external to the planning process. It is these aspects of fairness that are not captured with current process design evaluations. Table 2 provides a succinct list of these studies and identifies study characteristics such as sample size, theoretical frameworks, methodology, and key conclusions.

Table 2. Summary of Public Planning Process Evaluations

Author (Date)

Title Analytical Framework

Variables Analysed

Characteristics of Sample Size

Troy Hartley, (1998)

Participant Competencies in Deliberative Discourse: Cases of Collaborative Decision-Making in the USEPA Superfund Program

Deliberative Democracy & Deliberative Discourse

Communication and negotiation skills of individual participants.

58 participants involved in two case studies

Duffy et al

(1998)

Improving the Shared Decision-Making Model: An Evaluation of Public Participation in Land and Resource Management Planning (LRMP) in British Columbia

Alternative dispute resolution, conflict management, multi-party mediation, interest-based negotiation, consensus decision-making, and land use planning

Support for process, representation, resources, and process design.

54 respondents from thirteen LRMPs

11 of the Bulkley Valley CRB members & 9 government agency

24 of the Robson Valley LRMP affiliate, and

24 of the Kamloops LRMP affiliate

Anne Wilson, Mark Roseland & J.C. Day (1996)

Shared Decision-Making & Public Land Planning: An evaluation of the Vancouver Island Regional CORE Process

Shared decision-making & conflict management theory

Design criteria & outcome criteria

14 VICORE members

Gregory Tamblyn (1996)

Shared Decision-Making in Land Use Planning: An Evaluation of the Kamloops Land & resource Management Planning Process

Consensus based negotiation and alternative dispute resolution literature

Incentive to participate, participant involvement, process management, and process mechanics

23 stakeholders involved in the process, 7 government and 16 public participants

Dorli Duffy (1991)

An Evaluation of Stakeholder Involvement in the B.C. Ministry of Forests Planning Process

Participatory democracy and conflict management

Fairness, efficiency and stability (defined by 12 criteria)

The process is evaluated in terms of the provisions it makes for stakeholder involvement in planning and decision-making.

R Kelly & D Alper (1995)

Transforming British Columbia’s War in the Woods – An Assessment

Public participation and alternative dispute

"access" to the decision making

14 members involved in the process

of the Vancouver Island Regional Negotiation Process on the Commission on Resources & Environment

resolution process and being "empowered" with the process

Brenneis et al (1990)

An Evaluation of Public Participation in the British Columbia Ministry of Forests

Public participation and democratic theory

Opportunities for public participation

Literature

 

Table 2. Summary of Public Planning Process Evaluations, continued

Author (Date)

Title Methodology Key Conclusions

Troy Hartley, (1998)

Participant Competencies in Deliberative Discourse: Cases of Collaborative Decision-Making in the USEPA Superfund Program

Content analysis on all text data, dramaturgical analysis of videotaped meetings

Identified three critical problem-solving skills (communicating, learning and knowledge and resource use skills) and two important human engagement capabilities (motivation and coping skills).

Duffy et al

(1998)

Improving the Shared Decision-Making Model: An Evaluation of Public Participation in Land and Resource Management Planning (LRMP) in British Columbia

Telephone survey

a telephone interview questionnaire

a telephone interview questionnaire

in-depth interviews

Identified strengths, weaknesses and challenges of the three processes using fairness, efficiency, and stability as evaluation criteria.

Anne Wilson, Mark Roseland & J.C. Day (1996)

Shared Decision-Making & Public Land Planning: An evaluation of the Vancouver Island Regional CORE Process

Telephone interview Identified three major challenges (participants unwilling to work collaboratively, large scale and operational difficulties) & three recommendations to improve the process (communication, time & products)

Gregory Tamblyn (1996)

Shared Decision-Making in Land Use Planning: An Evaluation of the

Telephone interview Identified four factors that contributed to the consensus; local stakeholders were willing to work collaboratively,

Kamloops Land & resource Management Planning Process

trust among participants, skilled co-ordinators and flexible process.

Dorli Duffy (1985)

An Evaluation of Stakeholder Involvement in the B.C. Ministry of Forests Planning Process

Evaluates normative criteria

Reforms to planning process are required if fairness, efficient and stable decisions are to be realised

R Kelly & D Alper (1995)

Transforming British Columbia’s War in the Woods – An Assessment of the Vancouver Island Regional Negotiation Process on the Commission on Resources & Environment

Survey CORE legitimised groups and was successful in including all stakeholders. Most members perceived themselves empowered within the process.

Brenneis et al (1990)

An Evaluation of Public Participation in the British Columbia Ministry of Forests

Literature review Recommendations to improve opportunities in the planning and decision-making processes of MoF.

 

Another major impediment to our understanding of how people understand and perceive these processes is the lack of clear definitions, criteria or planning components that identify a successful collaborative land and resource shared decision-making processes. For example, Crowfoot and Wondolleck (1990) identify three characteristics essential to collaborative shared-decision-making processes: voluntary participation by parties involved, direct group interaction among representatives of these parties and mutual agreement or consensus decisions (Crowfoot and Wondolleck 1990). According to Crowfoot and Wondolleck (1990), the difference between alternative and traditional planning processes is rooted in the structure of the process itself: who is involved, how they are involved, and how issues are framed and then acted upon in making and then implementing decisions (Crowfoot and Wondolleck 1990).

However, Susskind and Cruikshank (1987), in their study of consensual approaches to resolving public disputes, identified fairness, efficiency and stability as essential criteria of a successful conflict resolution planning process. Similarly, Wilson, Roseland and Day (1996), in their evaluation of the Vancouver Island CORE process choose incentive to participate, participant involvement and process mechanics as their evaluation criteria. These inconsistencies in the literature have made it difficult for researchers to completely understand and capture the true meaning for participants of land and resource management planning processes in British Columbia

This failure to systematically evaluate public participation on a cross-sectional or provincial basis, combined with the inconsistencies in alternative dispute resolution literature, has seriously

affected the depth and breadth of this research. As a result, the criteria by which these processes were evaluated are too specific to capture the many different views and concerns associated with public participation in land and resource management planning processes.

2.3. Human Dimensions Research Literature

Human Dimensions Research (HDR) is an emerging field within the framework of natural resources management that places a growing importance on the behaviours, attitudes and needs of people affected by such land use decisions and planning processes (Ewert 1996).

Decker, Brown & Knuth (1996) advocate two pervasive, parallel developments that necessitate human dimensions research to natural resource management and planning. The first development acknowledges the increase in public interest, knowledge and education regarding natural resources management and planning. This heightened public interest has resulted in more people wanting a say in how their resources are managed. Second, widespread public desire for greater involvement into the decision-making process has led to greater expectations for government responsiveness and accountability. Consequently, resource management agencies are not only faced with the task of managing natural resources for an ever-expanding array of input and interests but they are also held responsible and accountable to such input and interest (Decker, Brown & Knuth 1996).

This research attempts to elucidate important planning components and issues from the perspective of participants involved in and affected by these processes. It is hoped that this research can lead to a better understanding of the way these planning processes appear to these people and through that insight lead to improvements in practice and engender a comprehensiveness not identified in previous studies.

3 RESEARCH DESIGN

3.1. Research Questions

As stated previously, this research is in sharp contrast to the typical approach of evaluating and assessing public participation in land-use planning processes. Whereas previous research, outlined above, typically begins with a general theory or criteria such as fairness, efficiency, and stability and derives hypotheses from the empirical testing of that criteria (Babbie 1998), this analysis is not specifically set up to confirm or refute a specific hypothesis. This research begins with a single focus: a single idea or problem that I wish to understand and explore and not a causal relationship of variables or a comparison of groups. Although relationships might evolve or comparisons might be made, these emerge later in the study (Creswell 1998).

This study focuses on the perceptions of participants, non-participants, and those affected by these land-use decision-making processes in British Columbia, and is organised around the following research question:

What factors and components are perceived to be important for producing successful land and resources planning processes in British Columbia?

It is hoped that this research can lead to a better understanding of the way these planning processes effect, concern and appear to these people and through this insight lead to

improvements in practice.

3.1.1. The Interview Question

This entire study can be reduced to a single, overarching central interview question and several subquestions. The central overarching question of this research is: What do you think about public involvement in forest land management and processes like the Land and Resources Management Plans (LRMP) and Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE)?

3.1.2. Subquestions

A number of subquestions were used to address or clarify a topic or issue being explored. These questions were not pre-established but were developed and adapted within the context of the interview process. In essence, each interview varied according to the individual and the life experiences they choose to share with the interviewer. The unique advantage of this approach allowed for people to respond in their owns words and to clarify the meaning of their responses.

"Topical subquestons cover the anticipated needs for information" (Creswell 1998). They form the general categories that emerge in a first review of the data. The following list provides some examples of topical questions used in the interviews.

Who should be at the table?

Would you like tenure or the AAC to be at the table?

What are the benefits of LRMPs?

What are the problems/challenges with the process?

Issue subquestions address major concerns and perplexities articulated by the respondents (Creswell 1998). The following is a list of some issue questions used in this study by the interviewer.

What about the public’s knowledge?

How do people feel about the plan?

How did industry get so much power at the table?

Exactly how should the public be involved and should they de dealing with some of the technical issues that end up at the table?

Both topical and issue subquestions followed an interpretative format and were typically formulated within the interview to give meaning and context to the respondents dialogue.

3.1.3. Probes

Additional questions probed into the involvement of people in local communities, First Nations involvement and involvement of people living outside the region. It was felt that this openness allowed for a greater latitude for discovering the unexpected – some regularity or disparity unanticipated by the concepts that might compose a theory or hypothesis (Babbie 1998). A copy

of the public participation question and probes can be found in appendix 1.

3.2. Focusing on the Specific Setting, Population, and Phenomenon

This research is part of a larger Forest Values Project (Tindall et al 1999). The objectives of this project are to develop valid and reliable measures of forest values and uses, and of attitudes toward forest management. The Forest Values Project employed a two-phase approach in developing its measure of forest values and uses: in-depth interviews and a questionnaire survey instrument.

The methods employed within the context of the public participation research can be characterised as a case study design. This approach encompasses some of the characteristics of both a case study and survey design methodologies. Whereas some consider "the case" an object of study (Stake 1995) and others consider it a methodology (Merriam 1998), Creswell (1998) defines a case study as an exploration of a bounded system over time through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information rich in context (Creswell 1998). This system is bounded by time and place; the boundaries for LRMPs and the CORE planning tables are largely based on Provincial forest district boundaries. Furthermore, each LRMP project is supposed to be completed within 18-24 months of its initiation (Government of British Columbia, 1999).

This study is characterised as a multi-site, collective case study. To date, a total of 4 CORE regional plans are completed and 18 LRMPs are either completed or underway in British Columbia and it is expected that the first pass of LRMPs will have been completed in the province by 2002. A total of 40 LRMPs are scheduled to be undertaken in British Columbia. While each process or case is unique in the issues it addresses and the participants involved, they are all characterised by the same guiding principles, as set out by in their mandate.

The strength of this approach is that it engendered a diverse sample of expert informants. It also produced a large sample size, which is somewhat atypical for qualitative research. The major weakness of this sampling strategy is that it will not allow for statistical generalisations to the population of British Columbia. I believe that the sampling strategy adopted, and described below, is the best available qualitative approach for achieving the objectives of this study.

3.3. Sampling

The province of British Columbia is divided into six forest regions and each region is sub-divided into between five and ten districts, making up 44 districts in total. Because we wanted to capture a very wide range of values and concerns associated with forests and forest land planning around the province, we sampled people from a variety of districts within each of the six different forest regions. We interviewed in cities that varied in terms of biogeoclimatic zones, economic dependence on forestry, and population size. In total, we interviewed in 18 of the 44 forest districts.

To identify groups of people to interview within the larger population, a quota sampling approach was adopted. Quota sampling is a non-probability sampling technique that allows one to identify important characteristics of the population of interest to ensure that these characteristics are obtained when sampling. Quota sampling begins with a matrix or table that identifies the characteristics of the target population. "A quota sample is representative to the

degree to which the characteristics one uses for constructing the matrix are prevalent in a larger population of interest, and are important to the phenomena under investigation" (Tindall et al 1999).

The quota sample designed for this study represented the diversity of people involved in forests, forest land management, and public participation and planning processes in the province. To do this, a wide range of relations to forests, based on people’s work, recreation, and volunteer activities, were identified. These included: people involved in the forest industry, government agencies, art, education, forest and wildlife sciences, forestry or pulp and paper labour unions, trappers/ranchers, tourism operators, community and environmental groups. Additional criteria for the quota sampling matrix included: gender, forest region, urban/ rural residents, and first nations/non-first nations peoples.

Once the matrix was created, relative proportions were assigned to each cell. Participants having all the characteristics of a given cell were then identified and interviewed. This sampling strategy was not designed to enable statistical generalisation to the population of British Columbia (Tindall et al 1999). Rather it was designed to ensure that we obtained rich and complete information on public participation and planning processes in the province.

Quota sampling was also chosen for several other reasons. First, the specificity of content and the level of detail in the interview required that the participants be competent to answer. As such, we interviewed people best described as "expert informants". These were people who have an important direct or indirect connection to forests, forest land management or planning.

Second, in order to capture the richness and diversity of perceptions and concerns we interviewed people from a wide diversity of experiences and connections to forests, forest land-management and public participation. The interviewees included educators, forest industry workers, first nations, scientists and forest managers. A simple random sample would not capture the diversity and level of expertise necessary to achieve the objectives of this study (Tindall et al 1999). A complete description of the sampling procedure can be found in the Forest Values Project Final Report (see Tindall et al 1999). Table 3, Relationships to Forests Quota Matrix, lists all the main groups and sub groups that comprised the quota sample.

Table 3. Relationship to Forests Quota Matrix

MAIN GROUPS SUBGROUPS

Artists/Writers Artists 

Painters 

Photographers 

Writers 

Sculptors 

Community Groups Local Politicians 

Community Forestry Organisations 

Chamber of Commerce 

Local Environmental Groups 

Regional Environmental Groups

National/International Environmental Groups 

Educators Primary Educators 

Secondary Educators 

Post Secondary Educators 

Outdoor Educators 

Environment/Parks Managers and Employees    

 

Federal Parks Managers/Employees 

Provincial Parks Managers/Employees 

Local/Municipal Parks Managers/Employees 

Parks Canada Administration – Managers/Employees (Dept. of Canadian Heritage) 

B.C. MELP Parks Division Managers/Employees 

First Nations (Cultural Background) Representatives of First Nations from a cross-section of Different Language Families in the Six Forest Regions. 

Forest Industry Managers and Employees (Private Sector):

Including: Harvesting, Saw Mills, Pulp Mills, Fine Paper Making, Value added/Remanufacturing, Forestation/Silviculture, Non-Traditional.

Small Business Owners/Operators 

Managers/Supervisors 

Workers 

Private Forestry Consultants 

Forest Managers and Related Government Employees (public Sector)

Forest Managers – MOF Regional 

Forest Managers – MOF District 

Forest Managers – MOF Operations 

Forest Managers/Employees Other 

Recreation Groups Mountain Climbing 

Outdoor Recreation 

Naturalists 

Hunters 

Anglers 

Birders 

Local Hiking Groups 

Other Recreation Groups 

Scientists Scientists – Ecologists 

Scientists – Trees 

Scientists – Plants 

Scientists – Animals 

Scientists – Soil 

Scientists – Water 

Scientists – Other 

Tourism/Recreation Operators Tourism Workers 

Recreation Operators – Owners (General) 

Guides 

Outfitters 

Trappers/Ranchers Trappers 

Ranchers 

Unions Cross-section of unions in the Forest Sector

(Tindall et al. 1999)    

3.4. Ethical Issues

Ethical approval for this research was given by the Behavioural Sciences Screening Committee, Office of Research Services and Administration, University of British Columbia. All interviews were recorded on audiotape and participants were required to read and sign a consent form prior to being interviewed.

4 DATA COLLECTION METHODS    

4.1. In-depth Interviewing

For this study I transcribed a subset of the 302 semi-structured in-depth interviews (199 interviews) conducted in the Forest Values Project. In-depth interviewing is defined as face-to-face encounters between the researcher and the informants directed toward understanding the informant’s perspectives on their lives, experiences, or situations as expressed in their own words (Taylor and Bogdan, 1984). A distinct advantage of the interview approach is that it allowed informants to describe experiences in detail and clarify the meanings they attach to them (Taylor and Bogdan, 1984).

In-depth interviewing was specifically used in an attempt to understand the complex perceptions of respondents without imposing any a priori categorisation that might limit the field of inquiry (Fontana & Frey 1994). The trend of using pre-established categories typifies many of the questionnaires used to evaluate public participation and planning processes. For example, Duffy et al. (1998), in their evaluation of public participation in LRMP in British Columbia used two instruments; a telephone survey of approximately 30 to 40 minutes and a telephone interview up to one hour in length. A telephone survey questionnaire format such as this would not provide the level of detail and understanding required for this study. The in-depth interview utilised in this study had no preconceived time frame; interviews ranged from 1.5 hours to six hours and averaged approximately 2 hours in length. This format allowed respondents the freedom to elaborate upon specific questions and issues that were important to them and relevant to our research and understanding.

The use of open-ended questions in this study also deviates from the normal approach to evaluating these processes. For example, Duffy et al. (1996), Tamblyn (1996) and Wilson (1995) all used closed-ended questionnaires in their evaluations of public planning processes. Typically, in these studies participants were asked to choose from a list of provided responses or scales, such as, strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree, and not applicable. The unique advantage of in-depth interviews is that it allows for people to respond in their owns words, to clarify the meaning of their responses, and to provide the possibility for novel responses not anticipated by the researcher or easily accommodated in the questionnaire. One could obtain a better understanding of the views and concerns of public participation through the subjective experience of the individuals as described in their own words. This understanding could only be captured through the method of in-depth interviewing. A copy of the research questions can be found in Appendix 1. 

5 RECORDING, MANAGING, & ANALYSING DATA RESOURCES

   

5.1. Recording

Recorded interviews were transcribed onto a protocol; a predetermined sheet on which one logs information transcribed from the interview. The use of an Interview protocol assisted in organising thoughts, information and concluding ideas (Creswell 1998). In figure 2 I provide the interview protocol used in this study.

Figure 2. Sample Interview Protocol    

ID#:

Gender

Age

Occupation/ Position:

Main Group #1:

Subgroup #1:

Community

Forest District:

Public Participation Section of Interview. Start at Counter #:________

Q: What do you think about public involvement in forest land management [and processes like Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs)/CORE]?                                

                           

End of Public Participation Section of Interview. Counter #:__________

Follow up Questions:

Does R appear to be familiar with either CORE or an LRMP process?

Has R ever been involved in a CORE or LRMP process?

If yes, what role did R have?    

5.2. Managing

Hard-copy transcriptions were organised into files and inserted into the Master Binder. The Master Binder collated all hard copy transcriptions according to the respondent’s identification number (I.D #). Categorical aggregation and established patterns of categories were organised into the Index Binder that was cross-referenced with the identification number in the master binder. A detailed explanation of this process is provided below. Finally, all files were backed-up with a hard copy and two computer copies.

5.3. Data Analysis

"Working "up" from data is often presented as what qualitative research is especially about" (Richards & Richards 1994). This study ultimately aims at describing and explaining a pattern of relationships and themes from the rich thick descriptions obtained from the interviews. The strategy employed in this research combines data analysis strategies of three qualitative authors (Bogdan & Biklen 1992, Huberman & Miles 1994, and Wolcott 1994). Table 4 illustrates the general data analysis strategies by author(s). The highlighted categories indicate the analysis employed in this study.

The first step recommended by Bogdan & Biklen (1992), Huberman & Miles (1994), and Wolcott (1994) involves a general review of all information. I began by reading through all transcriptions, and reformatting them, to obtain a sense of the overall data, a procedure also

advocated by Tesch (1990) and Creswell (1998). I then began to jot down notes and ideas in the margins of each transcription in the Master Binder. These memos are short phases, ideas, or key concepts that emerge from the transcriptions. I then began to write these findings in the form of memos and reflective notes, eventually reducing the data to codes and categories that comprise the Index Binder. This translation involved the development of a short list of tentative codes that match a text segment in the transcriptions.

Table 4. General Data Analysis Strategies by Authors

Analytic Strategy

Bogdan & Biklen (1992)

Huberman & Miles (1994)

Wolcott (1994)

Sketching ideas Jot down ideas in margins of fieldnotes

Write margin notes in fieldnotes

Highlight certain information in description

Taking notes Write memos, write observer’s comments

Write reflective passages in notes

 

Summarise field notes

  Draft a summary sheet on fieldnotes

 

Getting feedback on ideas

Trying out themes on interviewer(s)

   

Working with words

Play with metaphors, analogies, concepts

Make contrasts and comparisons

Display findings in tables, charts, diagrams, and figures; compare with a standard

Identify codes Develop coding categories

Write codes, memos

 

Reduce information

Sort material into categories

Note patterns and themes

Identify patterned regularities

Count frequency of codes

  Count frequency of codes

 

(adapted from Creswell, 1998)

I used categorical aggregation to classify the data in this case study research. This form of coding

involves reading each passage of text, and identifying, with a word or short phrase, the main themes from the data (Creswell 1998) (also see Lincoln & Guba 1985; and Taylor & Bogdan 1984). This data analysis procedure consists of moving from reading and memoing of the transcriptions to describing, classifying and interpreting the data. For example the following passage:

"Despite all our attempts to get people to think shared decision-making and work together, they still come with their individual issues and entrenched positions"

was assigned the code of Positional Bargaining. The code Positional Bargaining serves to denote this passage as one in which the participant describes the entrenched positions of people involved in this particular process and their reluctance or inability to adopt a shared decision-making approach. The code Positional Bargaining highlighted a larger overarching theme that emerged from the aggregation of similar codes in the text; that being Consensus, Shared Decision-Making. Table 5 provides an illustration of the category; Consensus, Shared Decision-Making, the codes and corresponding content and text examples.

Table 5. Category-Code Formulation

Category Code Content/Text

CONSENSUS, SHARED

DECISION-MAKING

Consensus 134, p.2 (Part, rural); "To get consensus on anything is really, really difficult. To get 17 people to agree to everything is a really major accomplishment". 

Positional Bargaining

171, p2 (info, rural); "Despite all our attempts to get people to think shared decision-making and work together, they still come with their individual issues and entrenched positions. 

Targets 192, p.2 (info, rural); "The 12% was an outside imposition in a way and the timber targets actually, those two things were from outside. 

Interests/

Values

187, p.5 (facilitator, rural); "There needs to be more linking of values… 

Limitations/

Restrictions to Consensus/ADR

180, notes (observer, rural); "There is also the issue of not allowing tenure and AAC to be discussed at these planning processes. 

According to Creswell (1998), category formation represents the heart of qualitative data analysis. "Here researchers describe in detail, develop themes or dimensions through some classification system, and provide an interpretation in light of their own views or view of perspectives in the literature" (Creswell 1998). Table 6 summarises the

data categories and codes used in the analysis.

Table 6. Data Aggregation Categories Codes

Themes/Categories Codes

Goals/Purpose Abstract Ideas/Goals/Vision Setting 

Guidelines 

Efficacy 

Credibility 

Consensus, Shared Decision-Making

Consensus 

Positional Bargaining, Positional Agendas 

Targets 

Interests/Values 

Limitations/Restrictions to Consensus/ADR 

Conflict Resolution 

Government Role of Government 

Government(s) Agenda 

Accountability 

Government Implementation, Expectations, Results 

Technology & Information

Public/Stakeholders 

Information & Technological Requirements/Demands/Access 

Research Availability/Inventory 

Annual Allowable Cut (AAC)/Rate of Cut 

Tenure 

Information Dissemination 

Involvement/

Representativeness

Local Involvement/Representation (what is local involvement?) 

Public Involvement/Representation 

Forestry Sector/Industry Involvement/Representation 

Ministry of Forests/Ministry of Environment Involvement/Representation 

Representativeness amongst stakeholders 

Environmental Groups 

Constituency-Based management/Involvement 

Selection Criteria/Process 

Experts vs. Public Role of Experts 

Role of Public 

People vs. The Process People at the table 

The process 

The Plan Development of a plan, Security, Assurance 

Size of Planning Processes, Scale, Boundaries 

Planning Framework/Structure 

Monitoring the Plan, Feedback, Evaluation 

Rewards, Advantages, & Benefits

Bring People together 

Increase in Knowledge Base/Educational Rewards 

Frustrations, Concerns & Disadvantages

Time, Length of Process 

Funding, Support 

Concerns 

Expectations 

Instability, Uncertainty 

Fairness 

Efficiency 

Other Planning Issues General Conflicts 

Higher Level Planning, Operation Plans 

Protected Areas Strategy 

Forest Practices Code (FPC) 

First Nations Treaty Negotiations 

Table 7 summarises the data analysis and representation employed in this case study and described above.

Table 7. Data Analysis and Representation

Data Analysis Case Study

Data Managing Create and organise files for data 

Reading, Memoing Read through text, make margin notes, form initial codes 

Describing Describe the case and its context 

Classifying Use categorical aggregation 

Establish patterns of categories 

Computation Hand-coding 

Interpreting Categorical Aggregation 

Representing, visualising Present narrative augmented by tables, and figures 

(Creswell 1998)

5.4. Coding

Preliminary "hand coding" was completed for 68 respondents. The "hand coded" data corresponded with the interviews performed by one of the four researchers of the larger Forest Values Project. This selection was intentional; I felt it engendered an additional level of consistency to the analysis procedure. I decided against analysing additional respondents (transcripts) because I felt data saturation had been reached. In fact, after analysing 43 interviews, new information from the additional 20 was minimal. Saturation is defined here by repetitive and/or no new information being found in the analysis. Preliminary analysis of the 68 respondents yielded 46 pages of qualitative data. I aggregated the data into 3 general themes, 12 components to these themes and 49 specific issues or sub-categories.

This approach is consistent with qualitative research and analysis. Janice Morse, in her paper Designing Funded Qualitative Research (1994) provides a guide to the planning of qualitative

proposals. In this paper, she suggests sample sizes from 30-50 for a hypothetical project using in-depth interviewing. While this range is somewhat hypothetical, she further articulates that these sample sizes are dependent on data saturation. Furthermore, sample sizes greater in size than Morse suggests often yields voluminous information that may be irrelevant to the research problem being analysed.

I also decided not to use any qualitative data analysis (QDA) software to assist in my analysis of the data. I came to this decision after attending an intensive three day qualitative methods conference and two day NUD*IST (Non-numerical Unstructured Data Indexing Searching and Theorising) workshop. Several reasons contributed to this decision. The first was the immense time commitment involved in being a competent NUD*IST user. According to several instructors and users, it generally takes several months before a user becomes technically competent with the NUD*IST software. Formatting alone could take months with this rather large qualitative sample size.

Second, the NUD*IST program is essentially a database, word processor and spreadsheet combined into one software package. Given that I have all these packages available in Microsoft Windows 98, it did not seem pragmatic to invest additional time into learning the idiosyncrasies of a new software package.

Finally there were several methodological issues in utilising such software to analyse qualitative data, which I struggled with. For example, according to Sharlene Hesse-Biber, QDA software tends to blur the line between quantitative and qualitative analysis; there is a fear of imposing the logic of survey research onto qualitative research or sacrificing in-depth analysis to meet high volume standards. Furthermore, there are problems with data fragmentation and de-contextualisation. Stated differently, the unit of data (line, sentence, paragraph) you select to analyse using QDA software may skew, shape or alter the results. In her analysis of the influence of three different QDA packages ATLAS.ti, NUD*IST and The Ethnograph, Susanne Friese (1999), concluded that different programs will influence what we emphasise, how we represent the data and ultimately what we report on. To avoid these methodological shortcomings, I personally "hand-coded" all transcriptions and hand coded the procedure of describing, classifying and interpreting the data explained above.

6 METHODS FOR VERIFICATION    

6.1. Criteria to Operationalise Verification

LeCompte and Goetz (1982), contend that qualitative research has garnered much criticism in the scientific ranks for its failure to "adhere to the canons of reliability and validity" (p.31) in the traditional positivistic sense (LeCompte and Goetz 1982). Common criticisms include a lack of precise descriptions, failure to employ a conceptually clear and consistent methodology, suggestive rather than definitive conclusions, questionable reliability and lack of generalisability (Henderson 1991).

Lincoln and Guba (1985) contend that in order to adhere to the canons of reliability and validity we need to establish the "trustworthiness" of a study. They use the terms "credibility",

"transferability", "dependability", and "confirmability" as "the naturalist’s equivalents" for "internal validity", "external validity", "reliability", and "objectivity" (Lincoln and Guba 1985). The following chart illustrates Lincoln and Guba techniques to operationalise these terms.

Table 8. Techniques That Establish the Trustworthiness of a Study

Term Technique

Credibility Prolonged engagement in the field 

Triangulation of data sources, methods and investigators 

Transferability Rich thick descriptions 

Dependability "auditing" of the research process 

Confirmability "auditing" of the research process 

Creswell (1998), defines verification as a process that occurs throughout the data collection, analysis, and report writing of the study and standards as criteria imposed by the researcher and others after a study is completed (Creswell 1998). Creswell and Miller (1997) present a classification of eight criteria that enable verification and assist in establishing reliability, validity and objectivity to a qualitative study. Table 9 provides a brief description of each procedure along with selected authors. Bold text denotes the criteria employed in this study.

Table 9. Verification Criteria and Description

Criteria Description Authors

Prolonged engagement and persistent observation

Build trust with participants 

Learning the culture 

Check for misinformation that stems from distortions introduced by the researcher or informants 

Ely et al. 1991, Erlandson, Harris, Skipper & Allen 1993, Glesne & Peshkin 1992, and Lincoln & Guba 1985

Triangulation The use of multiple and different sources, methods, investigators, and theories to provide corroborating evidence

Ely et al 1991, Erlandson et al. 1993,

Glesne & Peshkin 1992, Lincoln & Guba 1985, and Merriam 1988

Peer review or debriefing

External check of the research process

Ely et al 1991, Erlandson et al 1993,

Glesne & Peshkin 1992, and Lincoln & Guba 1985

Negative case analysis

Refinement of working hypothesis as the inquiry advances

Ely et al 1991, Lincoln & Guba 1985, Huberman & Miles 1994

Clarifying researcher bias

Researcher comments on past experiences, biases, prejudices, and orientations

Merriam 1988

Member checks Researcher solicits informants views of the credibility of the findings and interpretations

Ely et al 1991, Erlandson et al 1993

Glesne & Peshkin 1992, and Lincoln & Guba 1985

Rich, thick descriptions

Allows reader to make decisions regarding transferability of shared characteristics

Erlandson et al 1993, Lincoln & Guba 1985, and Merriam 1988

External audits Allow an external consultant or auditor to examine both the process and the product of the account, assessing their accuracy.

Erlandson et al 1993, Lincoln & Guba 1985, Huberman & Miles 1994, and Merriam 1988

(Adapted from Creswell 1998)

Creswell (1998) recommends that qualitative researchers engage in at least two of the eight verification criteria (Creswell 1998). This study will employ four to establish the "trustworthiness" of this research: conduct triangulation, peer review or debriefing, clarifying researcher bias, and writing with detailed and thick descriptions. The following paragraphs provide a detailed explanation of these criteria.

6.1.1. Triangulation

Triangulation is a heuristic tool that involves the use of multiple and different sources, methods, investigators, and theories to provide corroborating evidence (Creswell 1998). This procedure is advocated by many qualitative researchers, including Ely et al. (1991), Erlandson et al (1993), Glesne & Peshkin (1992), Janesick (1994), Lincoln & Guba (1985) and Merriam (1988). Triangulation advocates collecting information from a diverse range of individuals and settings, and using a variety of methods. This strategy reduces the risk of chance associations and of systematic biases due to a specific method and allows better assessment of the generality of explanations produced from the research (Maxwell 1996). Two types of triangulation were used: data and theory triangulation.

Data triangulation is defined as the use of a variety of data sources in a study (Janesick 1994).

The sampling strategy used in this research identified participants from a variety of forest land management backgrounds and public participation and planning process experiences throughout the province. In sum, we interviewed public planning participants and non-participants; people whom provided information to the planning processes; people whom simply observed and people who left a particular planning process. Table 10 illustrates the percentages for each group. We also interviewed various stakeholder positions including forest workers, union representatives, trappers, and ranchers, recreationalists, guide outfitters, scientists and educators, and environmental groups. This strategy reduced the risk of chance associations and of systematic biases due to specific planning processes or other participant idiosyncrasies.

Table 10. Respondent Involvement in CORE or LRMP Processes

Theory triangulation, the use of multiple perspectives to interpret a single data set, was used as a component of the verification procedure. This was accomplished by triangulating and fortifying various emergent categories within theoretical frameworks or perspectives in relevant literature. This type of triangulation is demonstrated in the Discussion, Recommendations, & Implications chapter. Here the theme cluster of legitimacy is triangulated with dispute resolution and consensus decision-making literature of Susskind and Cruikshank (1987), and Wilson, Roseland and Day (1996), and democracy theory of Parenteau (1988). Similarly the theme cluster of efficacy and efficiency are triangulated with alternative dispute resolution literature of Crowfoot and Wondolleck (1990).

6.1.2. Peer Review and Debriefing

Loraine Lavallee conducted the Peer Review and Debriefing component of the verification procedure. Loraine Lavallee is a postdoctoral fellow and co-investigator of the Forest Values Project. Through her courses at the Justice Institute and at the University of British Columbia, Loraine has received substantial training in in-depth interviewing and conflict resolution. Her involvement in shaping the Forest Values Project and my research has been ineffably invaluable.

This insight makes her participation essential in the review process.

Peer feedback provides a mechanism to ensure credibility, dependability and confirmability of the researcher and research project have been achieved. According to Gilbert et al (1999), the role of peer feedback is not to come to consensus with the researcher on the process or results but rather to play the devil’s advocate; to stimulate the researcher’s creativity and provide an alternative perspective to the process, analyses, and categorisation of the data.

Summaries of preliminary coding results were shared with Loraine as a check on the coding and analysis of the interviews. Loraine and I met on several occasions during the data analysis process. The purpose here was not necessarily to come to consensus on the codes and coding schema but to confirm them and provide an alternative and informed perspective as the interviewer and co-investigator. This feedback was in the form of written or verbal comments. A description of one peer review session along with the corresponding notes can be found in Appendix 2.

6.1.3. Clarifying Researcher Bias

Because of possible bias towards public planning processes in British Columbia and the potential that this research could simply be an instrument to confirm such biases, I actively searched for disconfirming evidence during the study period. This process involved two phases. The first involved numerous literature searches as well as conversations with several participants and various academics. The purpose of this search was to find data or cases that specifically disconfirmed the various assertions made from the analysis of this data. There were no disconfirming data sources found for the theme cluster of legitimacy and only collaborating data sources (see Duffy 1991, Tamblyn 1996, and Wilson 1995) identified for the theme clusters of efficacy and efficiency.

The other part of this search involved identifying discrepant data within the data results of this research. Again, no data emerged from the analysis that contradicted the three theme clusters of legitimacy, efficacy and efficiency. This active search for disconfirming evidence was essential to demonstrating rigour within this study and essentially objectifying the research.

6.1.4. Writing with Detailed and Thick Descriptions

Rich, thick descriptions contextualise the data, in this case text, being analysed. This process of interpretation is rendered intelligible by using these rich thick descriptions for formulating the categorical aggregations of legitimacy, efficacy and efficiency. By describing in detail the participants dialogue, the researcher enables readers to transfer information to other settings and to determine whether the findings can be transferred "because of shared characteristics" (Creswell 1998).

Verbatim transcriptions of various interviews are found in the Results chapter. These "rich" descriptions provide context to the data and therefore provide a full and complete picture of what is going on in the interview.

The combination of these four verification criteria: triangulation, peer review or debriefing, clarifying researcher bias, and rich descriptions demonstrates a devotion to rigour and process throughout the data collection, analysis, and report writing of this study. And although I question

the positivistic undertones that necessitate this formal process, I am confident that this study employs a defensible, conceptually clear and consistent methodology. I believe that the "trustworthiness" of this study has been clearly demonstrated and will therefore, adhere to the canons of reliability and validity.

7 RESULTS

Three overarching central themes emerged from the data analysis outlined in the previous chapter: legitimacy, efficacy, and efficiency. From the perspectives of the respondents, legitimacy, efficacy and efficiency are identified as essential planning components that contribute to either the promotion or preclusion of these land and resource management planning processes. According to these respondents, legitimacy is articulated through representativeness in the planning process, role of government, consensus and fairness, efficacy is voiced through people, government and information concerns and efficiency is couched in time, structure and information concerns.

This chapter presents the results in terms of these three broad themes. Each theme is described and defined and, where possible, complemented with a numeric weighting. Specific quotes are used to summarise and illustrate the findings while retaining the richness of the participants’ own words. The quotes presented here were not randomly selected. Rather, they provide ideal typical examples of the themes they are associated with. They are presented here to more fully illustrate the meaning of the themes to the reader. This format illustrates both the depth, in the form of quotes and tables, and breath, in the form of descriptions and numeric summaries, of information engendered from this study.

7.1. Legitimacy

The most prevalent abstract concept that emerged from the data is legitimacy: the manner, process and particulars in which these public planning processes either receive or fail to receive justification and legitimacy. According to the respondents, representativeness, government (role of), consensus, and fairness comprise four important components of legitimacy. These categories either promulgate or preclude the legitimacy of these land and resource management planning processes. Figure 3 provides a hierarchical illustration of the legitimacy theme and the four important components that comprise this theme.

Figure 3. Legitimacy Typology                    

   

7.1.1. Representativeness

Representativeness is the first component of legitimacy. It not only refers to the amount of public, stakeholder and government involvement and representation but also refers to the representation of values, interests, and concerns presented during the planning processes. Representativeness speaks to the issues of who should be involved at in these planning processes and to what extent they are involved, and perhaps more importantly, should they be involved. Furthermore, representativeness asks the question to what extent are these values, interests, and concerns reflective of the general public, per se, or are they simply reflective of the people involved in the process?

63% of respondents (n=43) talked about the tension between inside and outside participants, local people, and people who live outside the planning area, and the interests and concerns they may advocate and impose on a particular process. This common theme advocates more involvement by local people and communities in these planning processes, quite often to the exclusion of outside public, stakeholder, and government interests.

On the amount of Public, Stakeholder, and Government Involvement and Representation, a First Nations respondent from the Chilliwack Forest District stated,

"more involvement by local people is needed". While a furniture manufacturer in the Fort St. John Forest District declared,

"I think local areas/communities should have say in how much of the resource should be taken away from the local area. Why should somebody in Victoria be the people who make the decisions in Fort St. John? Local knowledge is essential".

This common theme advocates involvement by local people and communities in these planning processes, quite often to the exclusion of outside public, stakeholder, and government interests.

18% of respondents (n=12) raised the issue of roles in the process: what is the appropriate role of experts and the public in these planning process and who is the legitimate decision maker? The issue for these respondents is: how to integrate the public into a process that is typically technical in nature and traditionally dominated by scientists and planning professionals without undermining the legitimacy of the process or the plan.

On inside verses outside participation, an LRMP facilitator stated,

"The problem or challenge is dealing with relationships between local, regional and provincial perspectives, and the role of government versus the role of the public in the process. A lot of people, particularly when they are local, do not believe that anyone else should have a say in their resources, particularly the provincial government which is theoretically the owner and represents the broad public perspective. (There is) huge tension between the local/public role and governments role and that nearly tears processes apart. Because they do not want to sit down and come to consensus with government because it is so hard".

The same respondent also stated,

"They (local participants) resent that right from the time you start the process, to who you invite to the process, when government staff put policy on the table. Every time something comes up, there is this distrust and belief that government is essentially there to screw them. They don’t respect the legitimacy of that provincial interest".

Similarly, on who should be involved and to what extent, a Ministry of Environment (MOE) scientist in the Fort St. James Forest District stated,

"We don’t have good representation from an environmental sector so the table representation was really skewed. Any impact to the way industry did business and their possible cut levels they were not willing to support. This is a resource based town and the table was dominated by forestry industry licensees and licensees foresters. Other representatives included the Chamber of Commerce, which was essentially a spokesman for Canfor. We actually had two men that were concerned about community stability. We had very few independent members of the community that sat as independent concerned citizens. Some of the people that were sitting as concerned citizens were actually industry foresters and that was where their interest lied".

An LRMP outdoor recreation representative declared,

"I see our land use plan being virtually 100% driven by the forest industry and I don’t see an equal plan. The people who feel and look to this plan as being good are the foresters. There are all kinds of environmentalists, conservationists, recreationalists, wildlife and biodiversity and many of the other interests, although they are somewhat represented in the plan, are down played and are not equal or not seen as equal". "I wonder if there was enough representation from social groups, such as, Small Business, Tourism and Culture Ministry. Were they involved at the land use planning tables or were they involved only at the beginning? So many people feel that this land use planning has simply served the forest industry and the corporations. A good bulk of the population are not receptive to the concerns of environmental or conservation or recreational related. Why is there such a rebuff to their concerns?"

On the general public representativeness, a saw mill general manager in the Prince George Forest Region stated,

" What are the public’s views? You have a few vociferous individuals and groups but what does the public really want? That is what is hard to determine. The LRMP is supposed to do that but one sector will represent quite a number of publics and any sector will only represent a handful. There is this issue of stakeholders that are represented at the table and not necessarily the public of people who are less connected with the issues. But it is tough to get the input of people that are not directly effected".

An MOE researcher from the Bulkley Forest District declared,

"I think that public consultation doesn’t necessarily bring the average person to the

table to express their views so it might be compromising democratic objectives".

On the representativeness of public vs. experts, a naturalists club representative in an LRMP declared,

"I think that is a real problem because most people don’t have the time to put in or the time to do the research. In many cases they don’t have the training to be able to participate in these discussions".

A planner from the Ministry of Forests (MOF) stated,

"I think perhaps the public should be involved in the preliminary steps of strategic planning, identify issues, contribute to the information base on resource values but I think that the more technical aspects should come back to professional planners. Despite all our attempts to get people to think shared decision-making and work together, they still come with their individual issues and entrenched positions".

Furthermore, a forestry consultant stated,

"There is a lot of education that needs to be done regarding how the public perceives forestry. So you end up with un-researched public opinion being considered in an LRMP when it shouldn’t be. The public doesn’t have enough time and we do not have enough time to educate the public, so there is the dilemma".

Finally, a woodland manager in the Prince George Forest Region declared,

"I went to school for six years so I think I have a lot of expertise and a lot of background, as do a whole lot of other people. And you are basically put us on a level playing field with people with absolutely no background or with different agendas and that sort of thing".    

7.1.2. Role of Government

Forty-four percent of respondents (n=30) talked about government, and its role in the planning process. Evidence of this theme is found in responsibility and accountability issues, Implementation issues, parallel processes, and structure issues voiced by respondents.

For example, on responsibility and accountability issues, a writer in the Fort St. John Forest District stated,

"We elected a government to govern and I think they should govern. They have a bureaucracy of able people and should govern accordingly, not for the immediate but for the future also.

A union member in the Prince George Forest District stated,

"But, another way of looking at it is that this is a real hot potato, through it back to the public, and when they churn something out, we are not to blame because they came

up with the answers".

Furthermore, a forest ecologist replied,

"It is a good way for the provincial government to off load responsibility for making hard decisions. It is a pretty consistent trend in the government; they have done the same thing in health with the community health boards and in education basically forcing local groups to try and solve insoluble problems. It kind of distances these bureaucrats and these politicians from the local problems. This is one way that they kind of dish of responsibility or accountability to someone else. Now that is sort of a centralist’s view of resource management decision-making but sometimes I think that some more informed authority should be making major decisions. Of course they are, government still retains the really important powers, like to set the allowable cut. You will never see the LRMP set the allowable cut.

On implementation, an LRMP recreation representative declared,

"How we implement the plan and what happens on the land-base to me is probably much more important than the plan itself. A plan is just a plan, if we don’t implement the plan or if we do not have the necessary resources available to implement it or to monitor the impact of what is going on in the land-base, you might as well throw it out with the bath water".

Finally, an LRMP facilitator replied,

"In some cases the plans were so vague that there was so much room for interpretation. Thus, you cannot tell whether the plan’s objectives are being achieved. That is a major problem. As a result, someone will always feel shafted. No matter how the thing is implemented, people will always think it was going to be different. That’s a problem. Because there are no benchmarks, it is difficult to see changes".

Parallel processes are defined as other land planning processes that coexists with CORE or LRMP but may have overlapping jurisdictions or conflictual agendas or mandates. Examples of parallel processes sited by respondents include First Nations’ Treaty Negotiations, The Forest Practices Code, and The Protected Areas Strategy.

According to respondents, the existence of parallel planning processes essentially undermined the legitimacy of the process by creating confusion and ambiguity within the process. For example, an MOF planner stated

"Again, part of the baggage that goes along with this is all of the other initiatives that are under way in the province. Industry is quite concerned about the cumulative impacts of all of them. It is quite difficult to look at LRMP in isolation from the FPC and other things that has already hit them".

A recreation owner-operator from the Prince George Forest Region declared,

"There are restrictions on the planning process from other plans or policies, such as LRUP".

Similarly, an LRMP agency representative replied,

"Other issues we had was that our LRMP was asked to make recommendations on protected areas. The Protected Areas Strategy evolved concurrently with LRMP. That was a real issue because it came with government targets; 12% provincial and ultimately a specific target for our planning area. The group bought into it as a whole but only after some real stressful debate. Again it was seeing as government imposing something on a public involvement process, so it was difficult to deal with".

There is also the issue of structure voiced by respondents. Structure refers to the planning framework imposed on the process by government. This framework embodied specific targets, such as the 12% protected areas cap, the 10% high emphasis biodiversity areas, the 6% ceiling on the annual allowable cut (AAC), and specific exclusions, such as tenure and (AAC), from the planning process. Examples include an LRMP facilitator, who declared,

"My feeling is that we should have AAC and tenure on the table, but the institutional changes required to do that are enormous because the provincial perspective would need to be present. You would probably need to decentralise the entire decision-making processes at some level, or something. The U.S.F.S. in their national forest plans, at the end of the day, the plan generates an AAC. And when they choose the plan they choose the amount of wilderness, plus the amount of wildlife and the amount of AAC. Whereas we separate the AAC part out, and I don’t think that is necessarily appropriate. The changes required to move to a different model are really large. It would be legal changes, jurisdictional changes, and political changes".

The same respondent also stated,

"You need tenure reform to deal with some of these issues and the government has repeatedly said no we aren’t entertaining tenure reform. And that fundamentally, we can’t do a lot with our current tenure system to make any fundamental shifts. I think this is still one of the hugest problem in terms of meeting some of these community needs. Government doesn’t have the will to take it on".

In addition, an educator in the Kamloops Forest District replied,

"Wherever we were faced with a target percent, whether or not it would be the 12% protected areas or the 10% high emphasis biodiversity areas, we always came to a disagreement. But where we reverted to back to what had to achieve (in the whole thing) and the (sort of) objectives of doing the process (and the planning process): whenever we had that as our objective and not a target, then we accommodated it quite well".

The opinion of many respondents is that by having restrictions, targets and exclusions, the process was never really able to reach a win-win scenario because it already put constraints on the outcome. 

7.1.3. Consensus

Consensus, and its implications in the planning process, represents the third component of

legitimacy. Evidence of this theme is found in positional bargaining issues, people issues, and power difference issues. This theme was articulated by fifty-three percent of the respondents (n=36).

These respondents felt that positional bargaining undermined interest-based negotiation at the planning table and as such undermined the legitimacy of these processes. It did this by not providing a forum to negotiate at the level of values and interests of everyone involved in the planning process. According to these respondents, the disposition and personality of participants involved influences whether the planning process will reach consensus or be reflective of a consensus decision-making process. Finally, the power difference theme that was articulated by these respondents raised the issues of availability of resources and negotiation experience of the groups involved in the process.

For example, on positional bargaining, an LRMP community groups representative stated,

"There was obviously some players at the tables that were not interested in negotiating and you felt that their interest were better served by taking a position and not dealing in consensus".

The same respondent also declared,

"In a large part the conservation sector were definitely taking an extreme position. The forestry industry did to a degree as well but they came to the table with an attitude that they were going to be the big losers".

And an MOF planner replied,

"Despite all our attempts to get people to think shared decision-making and work together, they still come with their individual issues and entrenched positions. We can go through all the training we want to interested based negotiations but ultimately people will bring their issues to the table".

On people involved in the planning process, a district planner for B.C. Parks stated,

"A lot of it comes down to the personalities at the table".

A biologist with MOE replied,

"Some of the tables have worked much better than others, a combination of leadership issues, personalities that are there, and so on". If you happen to have the right individual there representing an interest, even though he is only one individual representing a larger field of interest and they can carry their interest forward well and can communicate well, you can get a pretty decent plan out of the process".

Furthermore, an LRMP community groups representative stated,

"I think it was probably more a matter of the right mix of people. I really do because we do have the right mix of people, for example, if somebody sees somebody else going off on a tangent that’s going to lead into troubles, they will try to bring them back. Usually, without grandstanding and jumping up and down and saying, "hey,

wait just a minute, come back here. Let’s take another look at this". And we will go back through it again and find out why that person is so adamant that this has to happen".

On power differences, a forest and wildlife ecologist with MOF stated,

"The negative side of CORE was that it (has) degenerated into a power thing at the end rather then a building process, whereas a group you are trying to co-operatively build, it generated into a power struggle. The forest industry had so much power that they basically got what they wanted".

An MOE LRMP information provider replied,

"It is another case where industry’s representation is far too powerful. Their representation and their lobby groups form such a huge part of that public process that it overwhelms everyone else. It is incredible: you are constantly being bombarded by industry and groups like Share, Cariboo Communities Coalition and Council of Forest Industries".

A scientist involved in an LRMP process stated,

"NGOs (non government organisations) still lack good technical savvy. It is almost embarrassing to see them being just played with like a cat and mouse at some of these LRMP tables. And it is because the individual is so incompetent it is almost painful to watch. Whereas industry representatives are selected from hundreds of individuals, usually there are two or three companies together that have one or two reps and the table and these guys are sharks. I have seen some of these NGOs break down in tears because they are so passionate about the point they are trying to make but they don’t have the information or they don’t know how to get it out of them. And sometimes they are making a valid point yet they don’t have the numbers to back them up or the GIS system to do the analysis".    

7.1.4. Fairness

Fairness, and its implications in the planning process, represents the fourth component of legitimacy. Evidence of this theme were found in twenty-eight percent of the interviews analysed (n=19). Fairness has emerged largely from the economic disparities inherent in the processes. These disparities, in the form of lack of funding, support and resources availability, are of particular relevance to stakeholders or participants with affiliations to non-governmental or environmental organisations.

Evidence of this theme is found in the following quotes. A local politician in Fort St. John stated,

"To run them (the processes) on a volunteer basis is unjust because most of the people are out there working everyday and they can not afford to participate in these processes. The volunteerism is not there".

A recreation owner-operator replied,

"It is an unfair process, some people are paid and some are not. Some groups have more resources to defend their position, allowing them to do studies, etc.".

An educator from the Kamloops region declared,

"I think it is incredibly onerous and from that point of view, involvement of the public may not be a fair thing. I was involved at the same level as were the representatives of the timber supply area licensees and they were getting paid and I wasn’t. So it’s a terribly unfair process that I think is also, in some ways, weighted towards industry more. So that unless somebody is in some other way able to derive some benefit from it, the public participation may be more of a sham than a reality".

Table 11 provides a succinct summary of components, categories and issues of legitimacy articulated by the respondents and described above.

Table 11. Components, Categories & Issues of Legitimacy

Components Category Issues

Representativeness Local vs. Outside the amount of involvement and representation 

the representation of values, interests and concerns 

who should be involved 

to what extent are ‘they", and perhaps more importantly, should they be involved 

Public vs. Experts to identify the appropriate role for the public and public participation 

appropriate roles in the process 

Government Decision-making process

responsibility and accountability 

structure issues 

parallel processes 

implementation 

Consensus Positional bargaining

negotiate at the level of values and interests 

People the role and personality of the individual 

Power difference availability of resources 

negotiation experience, 

Fairness   lack of funding 

lack of support 

resources availability 

 

7.2. Efficacy

The second abstract concept to emerge from the data, although smaller in prevalence, is efficacy. Efficacy is defined here as the ability of a participant, or participants, involved in the process to produce a desired result, effect, or land-use plan within the prescribed decision-making framework and process. Within the context of efficacy, three sub category themes have been identified that either promulgate or preclude the efficacy of the planning process. Figure 4 provides a hierarchical illustration of the efficacy theme and the three important components that comprise this theme.

Figure 4. Efficacy Typology                            

7.2.1. People

The first component focuses on people involved in the process. It was articulated by sixteen percent of the respondents (n=11). These respondents raise the issue of ability, willingness and competence of a participant, or participants, involved in the process to produce a desired result, effect, or land-use plan, within the prescribed decision-making framework and process.

Examples include an environmentalist from the Prince George Forest District, who said,

"But even more important than that is when anyone joins a process like that they should know that they are going to be taken seriously and that the process itself is going to be taken seriously. So that when you put months and years into it that you are not made to feel like you have wasted your time".

The same respondent also stated,

"They (government) are not going to take any of the things seriously that we achieved consensus on".

While an educator from the Williams Lake Forest District declared,

"There is a lot of anger in the community about that because people feel ripped off; they put a lot of energy into the process and it is still not happening. All sectors, in general are pissed off about the process, it really doesn’t matter. They are all opposing reasons but they are all pissed off".    

7.2.2. Role of Government

Government, and its role in the planning process, is the second component of efficacy. Evidence of this theme is found in implementation issues, and structure issues. According to nineteen percent of the respondents (n=13), implementation by government, after the group decisions had been made, by government essentially undermined the efficacy of the process. It was seen as an opportunity for government to reassert its authority over the process and thwart the efficacy of the participants in producing a land use plan. Examples include a forester in Fort St John, who stated,

"We always had this feeling, and we were right, that the government was trying to direct it a certain way".

An environmental community group representative in Prince George stated,

"And I think that the government still has the ultimate say with the LUCO Boards. Approval by Cabinet, is something that has to be done and it is good to have it in legislation as a Higher Level Plan. At the same time I have scepticism about the kinds of decisions that LUCO makes and how the boards are made up; what individuals are on those decision-making bodies. Because ultimately no matter what you come to terms with at the table, it can be a whole different thing by the time LUCO and the Cabinet is done with it. There is consultation but it is not always inputted and I think that government has a little bit too much power in saying what goes and what doesn’t".

On the same issue, a participant in the Williams Lake LRMP declared,

"We had been talking for three meetings, every two weeks. We had got down to two or three alternative choices for this one cut-block. And the Ministry of

Forests started the meeting by saying that we did not have to deal with that cut block because the cutting permits had been approved. So the whole thing just fell apart. I think it was a reassertion of the government’s authority".

7.2.3. Information

Information is a multitudinous category that influences legitimacy, efficacy and efficiency of the planning process. According to fifteen percent of respondents (n=10), information access and availability has a major influence of the efficacy of the process in producing a legitimate and technically competent land and resource plan. Within the context of efficacy, the information theme was expressed through three dominant issues: (1) information availability to participants and the planning process, (2) information discrepancy from different sources or perspectives and (3) information disparity among various participants and stakeholder within the planning process. An example of information availability includes this reply from an environmentalist from the Prince George region, who declared,

"There was a lot of information that was simply not available. In our area, there have never been adequate wildlife inventories and stuff like that, so we don’t even know what we are talking about most of the time.

On information disparity, an observer of the Robson Valley LRMP stated,

"And they (industry and government) have all the access to the information. Unless you know specifically what you are asking for, you’re probably not going see what you need to know. There was a problem with the amount of information that was given to people in the first place".

A participant in the Kamloops LRMP declared,

"There is a need for indicators as to whether there is success in the land use plans and I see very few occasions where people are going out and actually seeking to find information as to whether their decisions were good or bad. It was because of this involvement with the LRMP that was pointing out how little really was known and how many management decisions were being made in an intellectual vacuum when it came to the kind of information that you needed to have".

Table 12 provides a succinct summary of components, categories and issues of efficacy articulated by the respondents and described above.

Table 12. Components & Issues of Efficacy

Theme Issue

People ability, willingness and competence 

Government implementation 

structure 

Information information availability 

information discrepancy 

information disparity 

 

7.3. Efficiency

The final theme to emerge from the data is efficiency. Efficiency is defined here as the ability of a participant, or participants, involved in the process, to accomplish a land and resource plan, within an appropriate time frame and with appropriate effort. Within the context of efficiency, time, structure, and information have been identified as components that either promulgate or preclude efficiency during the planning process. Figure 5 provides a hierarchical illustration of the efficiency theme and the three important components that comprise this theme.

Figure 5. Efficiency Typology                            

7.3.1. Time

The predominant time theme emerging from the data is that these processes are too long in duration and too time consuming. According to twenty-one percent of respondents (n=14), efforts should be made to shorten the time frame and thus make the process more efficient. For example a district planner for B.C. Parks stated, "One of the frustrating things about these processes is that they took so long: 4-5 years". In addition, an MOF planner replied,

"I would like to see these processes streamlined or refined if they can be without effecting the outcome. They take a long time. I think you could shorten the time span down".

Similarly, a forester in Fort St. John replied,

"It is such a long process it is hard to keep the same people at the table. It is way too

long a process".

Finally, a biologist from MOE involved in an LRMP declared,

"Some of these have gone on for five years or more and it requires a sustained commitment of time. Some of them require two meetings a month, a tremendous commitment of time, including preparation and stuff outside of the on-going meetings".

7.3.2. Structure

The structure of the process has had an important influence on its efficiency. Two structural issues specifically: terms of reference and absence of guidelines were cited by ten percent of respondents (n=7) as significant deterrents to an efficient process. Furthermore, the structure imposed on the planning process by government, has been a prevalent theme in the preclusion of all three abstract concepts identified in this study.

On terms of reference, an MOF forest manager stated,

"Sometimes I think that the way that we structure the process and how we analyse and evaluate objectives/goals/values leaves us more open to this political stuff becoming dominant".

Similarly, a conservationist from the Fort St. John region declared,

"The process didn’t have a clue where to start. We had no terms of reference, everybody had to draft their own terms of reference and the government didn’t offer anything to start off with".

A forest manager from the Cariboo region stated,

"One flaw in the process was the absence of adequate terms of reference. In any planning process, terms of reference are vitally important. We didn’t know the objectives or what the outcome of the planning was supposed to be. If this had been provided at the outset there may not have been so much animosity between some of the players".

On guidelines, an MOF manager replied,

"We weren’t given clear enough guidelines going in and it has been a very frustrating waste of time. It was destined to fail as far as I’m concerned. The intention was good but there were not enough guidelines. We need rules, people need rules and hopefully the people making the rules put the right guidelines on them".

A biologist with the MOE stated,

"We were one of the earlier ones. We started in October of 1992 and we suffered from a lack of clear direction at the beginning. I think the government and everybody else were still trying to figure out what all this stuff meant. It really depends on the type of planning teams and the guidance and we really struggled at the beginning".

Finally, an LRMP community forestry representative declared,

"The failure of the CORE process in the Cariboo I think was partly because of the lack of guidelines as to what we were suppose to do and how we were suppose to accomplish that".

7.3.3. Information

This theme has been previously discussed within the context of efficacy. There is a strong correlation of information issues between the concepts of efficacy and efficiency. For example for both concepts, the information theme was expressed through three dominant issues: (1) information availability to participants and the planning process, (2) information discrepancy from different sources or perspectives and (3) information disparity among various participants within the planning process. In total, fifteen percent of respondents (n=10) talked about information, within the context of efficiency. For example, an MOF planner and LRMP participant stated,

"We don’t always have the information in place and we go ahead anyway. We don’t have the tools to show people alternatives. There is a lot of technology out there that we don’t have access to.....I think a lot o these processes started before the information was available".

In addition, a wood-lot licensee in the Bulkley region replied,

"There is a lot of research done but it seems to be such basic research. Like figuring out what types of plants grow and what are the requirements for plants rather than requirements for trees. We should be able to walk into the forest and see the undergrowth and know exactly what the ground is. That research should have been done a long time ago but we are starting from scratch. We should be able to take an inventory of growing conditions by just looking at what grows there. I think they should do more experimentation into practical things and on a fairly large scale. And of course if you do research on trees you have to set it up for 100 years and that is so difficult in this country"

Table 13 provides a succinct summary of components, categories and issues of efficiency articulated by the respondents and described above.

Table 13. Components & Issues of Efficiency

Theme Issue

Time too long in duration 

too time consuming 

Structure absence of guidelines 

terms of reference 

Information information availability 

information discrepancy 

information disparity 

                             

7.4. Numeric Summary

Table 14. Numeric Summary of Themes and Components

Theme Component Factor N %

Legitimacy Representativeness Local vs. Outside 43 63%

Public vs. Expert 12 18%

Government 30 44%

Consensus 36 53%

Fairness 19 28%

Efficacy People 11 16%

Government 13 19%

Information 10 15%

Efficiency Time 14 21%

Structure 7 10%

Information 10 15%

Table 14 provides a relative weighting of the prevalence of these themes in the interviews. The percentage refers to the number of respondents who self-generated responses were associated with these themes and the factors that comprise them. It should be noted that the percentage would be quite different if questions pertaining to each theme were asked systematically of all respondents. Thus one cannot simply infer that themes with higher percentages mean that a higher proportion of respondents endorsed these themes. However, having said that, this weighting represents the themes that respondents felt complied or important enough to speak about.

An interesting observation to note is the amount of people who spoke about legitimacy. For example, 63% of the respondents spoke about representativeness, while 53% spoke of government and 44% spoke of consensus as it relates to the legitimacy of these planning processes. This finding is of particular interest when correlated with the lack of previous research that has focused on legitimacy of these or similar alternative dispute resolution processes. Of the authors identified in the literature review, only Parenteau (1988) advocates legitimacy as a motivation for public participation in these decision-making processes. Another interesting observation is that while the themes of efficiency, fairness and consensus have been identified and used as evaluative criteria in similar planning processes, fairness and efficiency are not key components or issues of theses planning processes, according to the respondents. Furthermore, consensus is articulated here as it applies to legitimacy and not as an evaluation of an outcome.

These findings provide interesting insight and clarity into land and resource management planning processes. These findings not only identify important planning components or issues of these planning processes but they describe the meanings for these respondents. According to these respondents, these components contribute to the legitimacy, efficacy and efficiency of land and resource management planning processes in British Columbia. The final chapter of this thesis elaborates upon the uniqueness of these findings and identifies some relevant implications.

8 CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

This thesis concludes that, from the perspectives of the respondents interviewed, legitimacy, efficacy and efficiency are essential planning components that contribute to either the promotion or preclusion of land and resource management planning processes in British Columbia. This conclusion has some notable characteristics that are worthy of discussion. Of particular relevance is the depth and breadth of participants’ views that focused on important planning components that comprise these three overarching themes and the meaning and context that the respondents bring to them. It is hoped that these conclusions will engender a revision in our thinking about the important issues and components essential to land and resource management planning specifically, and consensus decision making processes, more generally.

The purpose of this chapter is to summarise the findings of Chapter Eight and to develop specific conclusions. Implications, in the form of alternative evaluative criteria, are also elucidated. Finally, I articulate my struggle with the integration of consensus decision making with land and

resource planning and make suggestions for further research.

8.1. Legitimacy, Efficacy & Efficiency

There is significant overlap in participants’ views regarding legitimacy, efficacy and efficiency of these planning processes. In the views of the participants, these three themes are identified as essential planning components that contribute to either the promotion or preclusion of these planning processes. In general, a successful planning process would be one that is legitimate, efficacious and efficient and an unsuccessful one would be lack legitimacy, lack efficacy and be inefficient.

The most prevalent of the three overarching themes to emerge from the data analysis is legitimacy. The four essential components of legitimacy: representativeness, government, consensus, and fairness, all ascribe to the manner, process and particulars in which these public planning processes either receive or fail to receive justification and legitimacy. To be perceived as legitimate, a land and resource planning process must provide an opportunity and present a forum to encourage complete stakeholder representation. It must demonstrate government support, not only in terms of funding but also by imposing an adaptive planning framework and structure that instigates creativity and innovative planning solutions. It must promote interest-based negotiation and it must be fair, in terms of funding, support and resource availability.

The second theme identified in participants’ descriptions is efficacy. Efficacy is defined here as the ability of a participant, or participants, involved in the process to produce a desired result, effect, or land and resource management plan within the prescribed decision-making framework and process. To be perceived as efficacious, a land and resource management planning process must provide an opportunity and present a forum to encourage stakeholder education and promote information availability, access and control to all planning participants. Moreover, it must demonstrate government support, by developing an implementation and monitoring strategy that guarantees the adoption and measurement of specific planning outcomes.

The final overarching theme identified in participants’ descriptions is that of efficiency. Efficiency is defined here as the ability of a participant, or participants, involved in the process, to accomplish a land and resource management plan, within an appropriate time frame and with appropriate effort. To be perceived as efficient, a land and resource management planning process must denote a specific time frame and promote information availability, access and control to all planning participants. Furthermore, it must impose a planning structure and framework that articulates the specific objectives, goals, terms of reference and planning guidelines of the planning process.

8.2. Implications

The recognition of these criteria presents a slightly alternative measure to some of the traditional approaches used to evaluate similar public dispute processes. For example, Susskind and Cruikshank (1987), in their study of consensual approaches to resolving public disputes, identified fairness, efficiency and stability as essential criteria of a successful conflict resolution planning process. Similarly, Wilson, Roseland and Day (1996), in their evaluation of the Vancouver Island CORE process chose incentive to participate, participant involvement and process mechanics as their evaluation criteria. Furthermore, Tamblyn (1996), in his evaluation of

the Kamloops LRMP process, concluded that the process was a success because it reached consensus and was subsequently accepted by cabinet.

This study, however, has highlighted alternative and additional evaluation criteria. For example, the numeric summary in Chapter Seven does not weight fairness and efficiency among the significant components or issues of these planning processes, according to respondents. Furthermore, consensus is articulated here as it applies to the legitimacy of the planning process and not as an outcome. Another interesting conclusion to note is the prevalence of legitimacy amongst respondents concerns. This finding is of particular interest when correlated with the lack of previous research that has focused on legitimacy of these processes. This research has engendered a extensiveness and comprehensiveness to the evaluation of land and resource management planning processes not identified in similar studies and highlights categories of concern, such as legitimacy, that need to be probed and examined further.

For example, these themes, and the components that comprise them, have the potential to be used as planning assessments by resource agencies to elicit feedback from participants and provide "insitu" evaluations and monitoring. These evaluations, in the form of survey type questionnaires or checklists, will provide a gauge to monitor the legitimacy, efficacy and efficiency of the planning process. This form of monitoring and feedback should engender an adaptive planning framework and structure that promotes creativity and innovation within the planning process.

The following is a possible list of questions that could be used to determine representativeness within the process.

1. Does the current representation of participants and contribute to the legitimacy of this process?

2. Does the current representation of values, interests and concerns endorsed by the planning table contribute to the legitimacy of this process?

3. Is there sufficient public involvement and representation at the planning table?

4. Is there sufficient local involvement and representation at the planning table?

5. Does the amount of participation reflect the values, interests and concerns of the general public?

Similar types of questions could be used to address other components of legitimacy, efficacy and efficiency.

8.3. Summary

The depth and breath of participant’s views that focus on components that engender legitimacy, efficacy and efficiency of land and resource management planning processes underscores the importance of supporting resources and creating forums that address these criteria. Specifically, these conclusions render intelligible the complexities of these themes and the importance of factors and components that comprise them. It provides a degree of comprehensiveness not identified in similar studies and highlights categories of concern that need to be probed and examined further.

These conclusions suggest the need for a modification, if not a fundamental reframing, of our traditional understanding, and evaluation of consensus seeking decision-making processes. Of particular relevance here is the need to stress the support of resources and guidance that encourage a legitimate, efficacious and efficient planning process.

8.4. Limitations and Concerns

The land and resource management planning process initiated in British Columbia is portentous in terms of its scope and involvement, elevating it to model status world-wide. The provincial government has been incredible by taking this on. Yet, at the same time, it has just been a tremendous challenge and struggle, and questions regarding its legitimacy, efficacy and efficiency still remain unanswered.

I, as a researcher, struggle with the issue of planning for natural resources and consensus decision-making. Specifically I am concerned with how we attempt to blend land and resource planning with consensus or other alternative dispute resolution processes. This concern was also articulated in this respondent’s quote:

"(The idea that) if you can get everybody to agree to something then that is the right thing to do or that is the correct way forward (is flawed)…you can get people…to agree to a practice that is unsustainable, and in fact, they are often forced to do that by the way it (the planning process) is set up. So my problem with this is that there are ecological limits and biological limits that can not be transgressed. It doesn’t matter if everyone agrees to it, they are still unsustainable. As I say there is sort of this post-modern belief that if you can get agreement or come to consensus, that solves all your problems. Well come on, it doesn’t".

I concur with Hanna Cortner (1996) and the respondent’s quote above, that the fundamental role of interest-based negotiation needs to be addressed as natural resource policy moves toward a new era in which sustainability, ecosystem management, and collaborative decision building are driving policy agendas and criteria. Historically, resource agencies have focused their attention on the ecological and economic components of natural resources management and have neglected the social component. However, the current Strategic Land Use Planning framework utilised in British Columbia specifically and in alternative dispute resolution processes, more generally, has focused intensely on the social and political components of natural resources management and may, in fact, be neglecting its ecological limitations. My concern is that we not only understand the social component but also its integration, application and limitations juxtaposed against its other components: economic, ecological and political, and within the realm of natural resources planning.

The limitations of this study stem from its sampling technique and case study approach. The quota sampling strategy utilised in this study was not designed to enable statistical generalisation to the population of British Columbia, but rather to elicit rich and complete information on public participation and planning processes in the province. In addition, the case study employed in this study engenders similar generalisability limitations. However, given the qualitative nature of the study design, it does not engender negative methodological implications.

8.5. Further Research

During this research study certain questions and information gaps became apparent. The need to address some of these questions and information gaps will assist in our understanding of land and resource management planning processes in British Columbia and elsewhere. Suggestions for further research that may address certain questions and information gaps that became apparent in this thesis include:

Survey research to determine the importance and relevance of legitimacy, efficacy and efficiency to CORE and LRMP participants and non-participants. This form of research triangulation can test the results of this thesis.

Studies that focus on the context and meanings of participants and non-participants of similar planning processes, in an attempt to elicit corroborating results and conclusions.

Studies that focus on some of the major concerns, issues and conclusions of this research. These include: planning structure and institutional arrangements, AAC and tenure issues, integration with other planning processes, and representativeness of stakeholders, interests, and values during the planning process.

Studies that focus on identifying participant competencies and appropriate training and education to encourage and enable consensus-based decision-making into land and resource management planning processes.

Theoretical and empirical research that addresses the fundamental role of interest-based negotiation within the context of natural resource planning and policymaking.

In closing, I hope this thesis assists in the ongoing processional revision of our current understanding about the social issues surrounding natural resources policy and planning and the approaches we adopt to address these issues.    

REFERNCES

Arnstein, S.R. (1969). "A ladder of Citizen Participation." Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 35(4):216-224.

Babbie, Earl (1998). The Practice of Social Research, 8th Edition. Waswoth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA.

Bercovitch, J. (1984). Social Conflicts and Third Parties - Strategies of Conflict Resolution. Boulder, Westview Press.

Bohman, J. and Rehg, W. (Eds.) (1997). Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reasons and Politics. Cambridge. MIT Press.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S.K. (1992). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Brenneis, K et al. (1990) Crown Land Use Planning: A Model for Reform. In C.Sandborn (Ed). Law Reform for Sustainable Development in British Columbia:

Options for Law Reform. Vancouver: Canadian Bar Association, BC Branch.

CORE. (1992). Report on a Land Use Strategy for British Columbia. Victoria, B.C.

____ (1994). Public Participation. The Provincial Land Use Strategy. Volume 3.

____ (1994B). Dispute Resolution. The Provincial Land Use Strategy. Volume 4.

Cortner, H. 1996. "Public Involvement and Interaction" in Ewert, A. (ed.) Natural Resource Management: the Human Dimension. Boulder. Westview Press Inc.

Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design; Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J.W., & Miller, D.L. (1997) Validity (Verification) in Qualitative Research: Perspectives, terms, procedures, and methodologies. Unpublished Manuscript, Department of Educational Psychological, University of Newbraska-Lincoln.

Crowfort, J. and Wondolleck, J. (1990). Environmental Disputes: Community Involvement in Conflict Resolution. Washington, D.C: Island Press

Dorcey, A. (1994). Public Involvement in Government Decision-Making: Choosing the Right Model. B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. June 1994.

Dryzek, J.S. (1997). The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

______ (1990). Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy and Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Duffy, D. (1991). An Evaluation of Stakeholder Involvement in the B.C. Ministry of Forests Planning Process. Unpublished Masters Thesis. Vancouver, B.C. The University of British Columbia, School of Community and Regional Planning.

Duffy, D.M., K. Kriese and G. Reay. (1996). "An Evaluation of the Kamloops Land and Resource Management Planning Process: November 1992-December 1994." Prepared for the Kamloops Forest Region Interagency Management Committee.

Duffy, D.M., Hallgren, L., Parker, Z., Penrose, R., Roseland, M. (1998) Improving the Shared Decision-Making Model: An Evaluation of Public Participation in Land and Resource Management Planning (LRMP) in British Columbia. Burnaby, B.C." Forest Renewal of British Columbia Final Report.

Ewert, A. (ed.) (1996). Natural Resource Management: the Human Dimension. Boulder. Westview Press Inc.

Ely, M., Anzul, M., Friedman, T., Garner, D., & Steinmetz, A.C. (1991). Doing Qualitative Research: Circles within Circles. New York: Falmer.

Erlandson, D.A., Harris, E.L, Skipper, B.L., & Allen, S.D. (1993). Doing Naturalistic Inquiry: A Guide to Methods. Newbury Park. CA: Sage.

Fontana, Andrea & Frey, James H. "Interviewing: The Art of Science", in N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln, eds., Handbook of Qualitative Research. (pp.361-376). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Friese, S. (1999). Does the Use of QDA Software Influence the Ways We Analyse Data? Advances in Qualitative Methods Conference. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Feb. 18-20, 1999.

Gilbert, W., Trudel, P. & Culver, D. (1999) Operationalising Procedures for Addressing Validity in Qualitative Research. Advances in Qualitative Methods Conference. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Feb. 18-20, 1999.

Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Government of British Columbia. (1999). "Land Use Coordination Office". http://www.luco.gov.bc.ca/ (20 June 1999).

Gundersen, A.G. (1995). The Environmental Promise of Democratice Deliberation. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Gutmann, A. and Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Hartley, T.W. (1998) Participant Competencies in Deliberative Discourse: Cases of Collaborative Decision-Making in the U.S. EPA Superfund Program. Seventh International Symposium on Society and Resource Management conference, University of Missouri-Columbia, May 27-31, 1998.

Henderson, K. A. (1991). Dimensions of Choice: A Qualitative Approach to Recreation, Parks and Leisure Research. State College, PA: Venture Publishing Inc.

Henning, E. (1999). Problematising Data Coding: Beyond Lexicons to ‘Contexticons’? Advances in Qualitative Methods Conference. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Feb. 18-20, 1999.

Hesse-Biber, S. (1999). The Perils and Promises of Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA) Software: Methodological and Theoretical Issues. Advances in Qualitative Methods Conference. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Feb. 18-20, 1999

Hessing, M and Howlett, M. (1997). Canadian Natural Resource and Environmental Policy: Political Economy and Public Policy. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Huberman, A.M., & Miles, M.B. (1994). Data Management and Analysis Methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln, (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. (pp.428-444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Janesick, V. (1994). "The Dance of Qualitative Research Design; Metaphor, Methodolatry, and Meaning". In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln, (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. (pp.209-219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Jary, D. & Jary, J. (1995). Collins Dictionary of Sociology, Second Edition Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers.

Kelly, R.A. & Alper, D.K. (1995). Transforming British Columbia’s War in the Woods – An Assessment of the Vancouver Island Regional Negotiation Process on the Commission on Resources & Environment. University of Victoria Institute for Dispute Resolution. Victoria, B.C.

Koch, Stuart G. (1980). Water Resources Planning in New England. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

LeCompte, M.D., & Goetz, J.P. (1982). Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research. Review of Educational Research, 51, 31-60.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Maxwell, J.A. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Applied Social Research Methods Series. Volume 41. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Merriam, S. (1988). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

M’Gonigle, M & Parfitt, B. (1994). Forestopia: A Practical Guide to the New Forest Economy. Madeira Park, B.C: Harbour

Morse, J. (1994). Designing Funded Qualitative Research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln, (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. (pp.220-235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Paehlke, R. (1987). "Participation in Environmental Administration: Closing the Open Door?" Alternatives. 14(2):43-48.

Parenteau, R. (1988). Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Making, Minister of Supply and Services Canada.

Richards, Thomas J & Richards, Lyn. (1994) "Using Computers in Qualitative Research", in N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln, (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. (pp.445-462). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sadler, B. (1979). Towards New Strategies of Public Involvement in Environmental Management. Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making: Strategies for Change, Banff, Alberta, The Environmental Council of Alberta.

Stake, R. (1994). Case Studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 236-247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Susskind, L., and J. Cruikshank. 1987. Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books.

Tamblyn, Greg (1996). "Shared Decision-Making In Land Use Planning: An

Evaluation of the Kamloops Land and Resource Management Planning Process." MRM Report 186. Burnaby, B.C." Simon Fraser University, School of Resource and Environmental Management.

Taylor, S. J. and R. Bogdan (1984). Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods - The Search for Meanings. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Tesh, R. (1990). Qualitative Research: Analysis Types and Software Tools. Bristol, PA. Falmer Publications.

Tindall, D., Lavallee, L. & Mascarenhas, M. Unpublished Forest Values Project: Annual Report. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. September, 1997.

Tipple, T.J. and J.D. Wellman, 1989. "Life in the Fishbowl:Public Participation Rewrites Forester’s Job Description." Journal of Forestry 87(3): 24-27.

Vance, J. 1990. Tree Planning: A Guide to Public Involvement in Forest Stewardship. Vancouver, B.C: B.C. Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

Wellman, J.D. and T.J. Tipple. (1990). "Public Forestry and Direct Theory." Natural Resources Journal 16(1):77-86.

Wilson, A. (1995). "Shared decision-making in public land planning: An evaluation of the Vancouver Island regional CORE process." MRM Report 159. Burnaby, B.C. Simon Fraser University, School of Resource and Environmental Management.

Wilson, A., Mark Roseland and J.C. Day, (1996). "Shared decision-making in public land planning: An evaluation of the Vancouver Island regional CORE process." Environments Vol. 23 (2): 69-86.

Wolcott, H.F. (1994). Transforming Qualitative Data: Description, Analysis, and Interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Wondolleck, J. M. (1988). Public Lands Conflict and Resolution. New York: Plenum Press.

Wondolleck, Julia M. and Steven L Yaffee. (1994). Building Bridges across Agency Boundaries: in Search of Excellence in the USFS. University of Michigan: Ann Arbor: School of Natural Resources and Environment.

APPENDIX 1

Interview Question

The public participation question was included in the Solutions, Involvement in Land Planning, & Visions section of the Forest Values Project interview schedule. Specific respondents were asked the following question:

What do you think about public involvement in forest land management and processes like Land and Resources Management Plans (LRMPs) and Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE) plans?

Specific probes included:

Who should be involved in the planning?

What about communities?

What about First Nations?

What about people living outside the region?        

APPENDIX 2

Peer Review & Debriefing

The following chart illustrates the peer review and debriefing process for two quotes selected from one respondent. The quotes were coded separately by the author and Loraine Lavallee, a researcher with the Forest Values Project.

Table 15. Peer Review & Debriefing Sample Quote

Quote Michael’s Coding Loraine’s Coding

"You need to have a regional framework for things that you set up".

Lack of framework or guidelines

Need a regional framework to simplify process

134, p.1 (part, rural); "If people come in it with a narrow-minded interest if doesn’t work.

134, p.2 (part, rural); "You need to select the people that are going to be on it carefully"".

People at the table; legitimate representatives.

Some interests are seen as legitimate;

Both Loraine and I saw the first quote as pertaining to a planning framework or structure issue. Specifically the lack of a regional framework was the real concern for this individual. The lack of a planning framework resulted in unclear objectives and a lack of direction for this respondent. This issue was coded as a government component of legitimacy. It refers to the tension between the planning structure imposed by government and the control of the process by government. From the perspective of the respondent this lack of structure precludes legitimacy from this planning process.

The second quote was also coded as a legitimacy theme. However, it highlights another issue for the respondent: that being who are the legitimate participants? This quote was coded as a representativeness component of legitimacy. It referred to the respondents concern of legitimate

interests in the process.

These two examples illustrate the congruence in coding between Loraine and myself. The purpose here was not necessarily to come to consensus on the codes and coding schema but to confirm them and provide an alternative and informed perspective as the interviewer and co-investigator. This feedback was in the form of written and verbal comments.

This peer feedback process provided a mechanism to ensure credibility, dependability and confirmability of the researcher and research project. Figures 6, 7 and 8 provide drafts of the central themes created during the peer feedback process.

Figure 6. Draft Legitimacy Typology        

Legitimacy    

Representativeness Government Consensus Fairness    

Local vs. Outside Implementation Positional bargaining

Public vs. Experts Parallel processes People

Decision-making process (structure) Power difference    

Resource Negotiation

availability experience                            

   

Figure 7. Draft Efficacy Typology    

Efficacy

(to complete the plan)        

People Government Information            

Figure 8. Draft Efficiency Typology    

Efficiency    

Time Structure Information