Content uploaded by Thomas Gunton
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Thomas Gunton
Content may be subject to copyright.
Environments Journal Volume 34(3) 2006/2007
Copyright ©
Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires
.
Copies may be made for personal and educational use. No part of this work may be reproduced or dis-
tributed in any form or by any means for commercial use without permission in writing from the Editor
.
Evaluating Protected Area Management Planning:
A Case Study of British Columbia’s
Protected Areas Master Planning Process
Tracy C. Ronmark, Thomas I. Gunton and Peter Williams
Abstract
This paper outlines a method for evalu-
ating planning processes and tests the
method in a case study application. The
method is based on 35 evaluation criteria
for planning processes. The 35 criteria are
divided into three categories: process (13
criteria), outcome (9 criteria), and imple-
mentation (13 criteria). The methodology
is illustrated by a case study evaluation
of the protected area planning process in
British Columbia, Canada. A survey of 19
stakeholders divided into two groups (non-
governmental organizations and park plan-
ners) was completed to verify the criteria
and to determine the extent to which the
criteria were met in the planning process.
Based on the survey results, weaknesses
in the planning process are identified.
Respondents ranked 10 of 35 evalua-
tion criteria as met, 25 as neither met nor
unmet, and none as unmet. Ranking
varies significantly by criteria category
with outcome criteria having the highest
met rate (6 of 9), followed by process cri-
teria (3 of 13), and implementation criteria
(1 of 13). Park planners provided much
more favourable rankings for criteria than
non-governmental organizations.
Résumé
Les auteurs de cet article exposent une
méthode d’évaluation des processus de
planification et mettent à l’essai cette
méthode en l’appliquant à une étude de
Tracy Ronmark has a
Master’s degree in Resource
and Environmental
Management from Simon
Fraser University. She
has worked in a variety of
planning positions related
to parks and resource
management and currently
works as a land use planner
for the government of
British Columbia. She
can be contacted at Tracy.
Ronmark@gov.bc.ca
Thomas Gunton is a
professor in the School of
Resource and Environmental
Management and Director
of the Resource and
Environmental Planning
Program at Simon Fraser
University. He has held
numerous senior positions
in government including
Assistant Deputy Minister
of Energy and Mines
for the government of
Manitoba and Deputy
Minister of Environment,
Lands, and Parks for the
98 Environments 34(3)
© Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires.
cas. La méthode est fondée sur 35 critères
d’évaluation des processus de planification,
qui sont répartis en trois catégories : proc-
essus (13 critères), résultats (9 critères) et
mise en œuvre (13 critères). La méthod-
ologie est illustrée par l’évaluation d’une
étude de cas sur le processus de planifi-
cation des aires protégées de la Colombie
Britannique, au Canada. On a effectué une
enquête auprès de 19 intervenants répartis
en deux groupes (organismes non gou-
vernementaux et planificateur des parcs)
afin de vérifier les critères et d’établir la
mesure dans laquelle on a répondu à ces
critères lors du processus de planification.
Les faiblesses du processus de planifica-
tion ont été dégagées à partir des résultats
de l’enquête. Les réponses fournies par les
répondants révèlent que l’on avait entière-
ment répondu à 10 des 35 critères, et
que l’on plus ou moins répondu à 25 des
critères; aucun répondant n’a indiqué qu’on
n’avait pas du tout répondu à un critère. Le
classement varie de manière significative
en fonction de la catégorie, celle portant
sur les résultats étant la catégorie présentant le plus grand nombre de critères
auxquels on avait entièrement répondu (6 sur 9), suivie de la catégorie portant
sur le processus (3 sur 13) et de la mise en œuvre (1 sur 13). Les planificateurs
des parcs ont classé le degré de respect des critères plus favorablement que les
organismes non gouvernementaux.
Keywords
Protected area planning, stakeholder involvement, British Columbia parks, plan-
ning evaluation
Introduction
The Brundtland Commission (WCED 1987) identified the need to increase pro-
tected areas as a key step in achieving sustainable development. Over the last
two decades, governments have responded by designating a larger proportion
of their land base as protected. British Columbia, for example, more than dou-
bled its protected areas from 6% to over 13% of its land base since 1992. Now
that jurisdictions have increased their protected areas, they face the challenge
of properly managing their new protected area systems to meet sustainability
goals.
In their recent review of protected area planning in North America, Nelson
et al. (2003) identify new challenges that protected area planning must meet
government of British
Columbia. His research
focuses on environmental
mediation and dispute
resolution and resource and
environmental planning.
He can be contacted at
tgunton@shaw.ca
Peter Williams is a
professor in the School of
Resource and Environmental
Management and Director
of the University Centre
for Tourism Policy and
Research at Simon Fraser
University. His research
relates to the use of land
and resource for sustainable
tourism. He can be
contacted at peterw@sfu.ca
99
© Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires.
T.C. Ronmark, T.I. Gunton and P.W. Williams
including: achieving a broader set of often competing objectives ranging from
conservation to economic development; integrating protected area plans with
regional plans for the surrounding region; ensuring local participation in protected
area management to meet local needs; integrating private and public steward-
ship; and using participatory planning processes instead of more traditional tech-
nocratic approaches.
Given the increase in protected areas, it is increasingly important that
protected area planning be properly designed and managed to meet the chal-
lenges identified by Nelson et al. (2003). The purpose of this paper is to provide
a framework for evaluating protected area planning processes based on best
practices criteria. The method will then be tested by a case study evaluation of
the protected area planning process in British Columbia. British Columbia is
chosen as a case study because it has used innovative planning processes and
has experienced a large increase in protected areas over the last decade, which
has heightened the need for preparing protected area management plans. The
paper will begin with an overview of the British Columbia protected area planning
process, followed by a description and application of the method for evaluating
protected area planning.
Protected Area Planning in B.C.
The first comprehensive policy statement on protected area planning in British
Columbia was issued in 1988 with publication of Striking the Balance (BC MEP
1988). Striking the Balance identified a number of tools for managing the pro-
tected areas system including the Park Act and Park Classification system
(which distinguishes protected area types such as Class A, B, and C Parks or
Recreation Areas). Planning for protected areas was divided into two compo-
nents: overall system planning for identifying potential lands to be added to the
protected area system and protected area management plans (also known as
master plans) to set management direction.
The development of protected area planning advanced with implementa-
tion of the Protected Areas Strategy and the Land and Resource Management
Planning process in the early 1990s, which resulted in a more than doubling of
protected areas in British Columbia (Day et al. 2003). It is important to note that
the planning for protected areas was integrated into a regional land use planning
process as recommended by Nelson et al. (2003). The growth of the protected
area system brought new challenges related to managing a larger land base for
competing interests within a constrained budget. Over the last decade, BC has
doubled the number of provincial parks from just under 400 to over 800. Fewer
than 300 of the 800 parks have approved management plans (Ronmark 2005).
In recognition of the need to develop management plans, the Minister of Environ-
ment, Lands and Parks announced BC’s Park Legacy Project in 1997 to review
protected area planning. A panel of experts was appointed by the Minister “to
provide Government with community-based perspectives and practical recom-
mendations for enhancing long-term planning and management of the protected
areas system, while at the same time encouraging the strengthening of relation-
ships between communities and provincial parks” (Legacy Panel 1999: 3).
The Legacy Panel consulted extensively with a wide variety of user groups,
100 Environments 34(3)
© Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires.
communities, First Nations, diverse cultural groups, and youth. The Legacy Panel
released their final report, entitled Sustaining Our Protected Areas System, to
the provincial government in 1999. Based on public input, the Legacy Panel
made recommendations on protected area planning and management issues. A
key recommendation of the Panel was the urgent need to prepare management
plans for protected areas (Legacy Panel 1999: 70).
In response to the Panel, the provincial government issued the Policy for
the Development, Review and Approval of BC Parks Management Plans (BC
Parks 2000). This policy document states that the primary goal of BC Parks’
management planning program is to “deliver, in a timely fashion, at the appro-
priate level of detail and public consultation, protected area management plans
that provide long-term vision and strategic guidance for the stewardship and
management of [protected areas]” (BC Parks 2000: 1).
Protected area management plans describe protected area values, man-
agement issues, and detailed objectives and strategies for protected area man-
agement. The management planning process may involve the preparation of a
background report, data gathering, research and consultation over a period of
two to three years. Public involvement can range from open houses and work-
shops to the creation of public advisory groups, depending on the complexity of
the project (BC Parks 2000).
Figure 1 describes the current management plan development and approval
process (BC Parks 2000: 3), which is based on the rational model of planning.
Management options are developed in step 5 (Assess Information) and in step 6
(Establish Management Direction). The plan is then distributed to the public for
review and comment after it is reviewed and endorsed internally.
Evaluation Methodology
Despite the work of several researchers such as Mackinnon and Mackinnon
(1986), development of protected area planning evaluation methodology
remained peripheral to the protected area research agenda until the 1990s when
the development of evaluation methodology for protected area planning took a
major step forward when the IUCN published a comprehensive methodology
(Hockings et al. 2000).
The IUCN methodology identifies three components for evaluation based
on a management cycle approach: inputs into process, the planning process, and
outcomes. The methodology, which uses indicators to measure effectiveness for
each of the components, was tested in case study evaluations (Hockings et al.
2004). While the IUCN evaluation framework includes all three components
in the evaluation, much of the associated research has focused on outcomes
by developing indicators and indicator monitoring systems to assess whether
protected areas are meeting their sustainability objectives (Hockings et al. 2000,
2004, Parrish et al. 2003). Criteria for measuring the effectiveness of the plan-
ning process are still not well defined in the IUCN evaluation framework.
Development of our methodology for evaluating the protected area plan-
ning process was based on the following steps. First, planning literature was
reviewed to identify best practices for preparing and implementing plans. Thirty-
five best practices criteria summarized in Table 1 were identified based on a
101
© Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires.
T.C. Ronmark, T.I. Gunton and P.W. Williams
Step 5 - Assess information:
� evaluation and interpretation of all data collected
� develop and recommend management options
� a
pp
l
y
the mana
g
ement
p
lan screen to
p
ro
p
osed strate
g
ies
Step 6 - Establish management direction:
� choose management direction that has the greatest level of support and that
achieves planning program and protected area goals
� develop draft plan for district team review and endorsement
� send plan to Headquarters Management Plan Review Team for review and
comment
� distribute plan to the public for review and comment
� table plan with PMC for review and approval of the management plan
Step 4 - Assemble information:
� higher land use planning reports and decisions
� PAS criteria and GAP analysis; cultural heritage, recreation, use and appreciation
and natural values
� Provincial data bases, local knowledge, agency input, etc.
Step 3 - Develop project terms of reference
� Establishes approved targets for project scope, staff involvement, process, public
involvement, roles and res
p
onsibilities, schedule and bud
g
et
Step 2 - Implement the management planning program
� Identifies
p
ro
j
ect
pr
iorities and annual work
p
lan for the
p
rovince
Step 1 - identify priority management planning projects in each BC Parks district
Step 7- Implement mana
g
ement plan
Step 8 - Monitor and evaluate:
� ongoing process
� involves impact assessments
Step 9 - Review and plan amendment
� will include a
pp
eals of the
p
lan
Figure 1. Management Planning Process
After B.C. Parks 2000
102 Environments 34(3)
© Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires.
synthesis of the best practices criteria developed by the sustainable planning
research program at Simon Fraser University. For a more extensive discussion
of the criteria and the planning literature reviewed see: Gunton et al. (2003), Cal-
bick et al. (2003), Albert et al. (2003), Frame et al. (2004), Gunton et al. (2005),
and Joseph et al. (2007). The best practices criteria are based on the theory of
collaborative planning and its underlying principle of the need to delegate plan-
ning to stakeholders who engage in face to face negotiation to reach agreement
on plans and management strategies. The planning literature suggests that this
type of collaborative process is more likely to result in plans that reflect the public
interest because they incorporate the values of a broad cross section of society
and are more likely to be successfully implemented because the plans have
broader public support (Frame et al. 2004). Next, a survey was developed to test
the importance of the criteria and the extent to which the criteria are met in the
protected area planning process.
The survey is divided into three main parts. The first part consists of closed
questions based on the evaluative criteria in Table 1. Participants were asked to
rate the degree to which each criterion was met in protected area planning pro-
cesses by responding to statements describing the planning process using a five
point Likert-type scale of agreement (strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither
agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree), or not applicable. A
score for each question was calculated based on the following scale.
Strongly agree 2
Somewhat agree 1
Neither agree nor disagree 0
Somewhat disagree -1
Strongly disagree -2
Multiple questions were used for each of the 35 criteria. An average score
was calculated for each question. Responses marked not applicable were not
included in the averaging calculation. Where a question is phrased negatively
in the survey, questions and responses were inverted to provide all positively
phrased criteria in the results analysis. The final rating for each criterion was
then calculated by averaging the responses for all the individual questions
related to that criterion.
The second part of the survey tested the importance of best practices pro-
cess and implementation criteria. The fourteen process criteria and the thirteen
implementation criteria were integrated into nineteen criteria to reduce overlap.
Respondents were asked to rate the importance of these nineteen criteria on a
four point scale (not important, somewhat important, important, and very impor-
tant). It should be noted that having stakeholders verify best practices criteria in
the survey by importance ranking is a significant strength of this methodology.
Most evaluative methodologies simply specify best practices criteria without
empirical verification.
The third part of the survey includes a set of open-ended questions regar-
ding protected area planning processes in which respondents were asked to
highlight key strengths, weaknesses and provide recommendations.
103
© Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires.
T.C. Ronmark, T.I. Gunton and P.W. Williams
The survey was administered by email to two groups of participants. The
first group included all provincial or national organizations that have an interest
in protected areas management in BC. Fifteen non-governmental organizations
were selected representing interests ranging from conservation, motorized and
non-motorized recreation, hunting and guiding organizations to non-traditional
resource users (e.g. cattle ranchers). Responses were received from ten non-
governmental stakeholder groups for a response rate of 67%. The second group
of participants consisted of eleven BC Parks planning staff. Park staff included
regional staff responsible for developing protected area management plans, and
headquarters planning staff responsible for overall planning policy. Nine res-
ponses were received from planners for a response rate of 82%.
Findings
Results presented in Figure 2 show that all the best practices criteria tested
in the survey are ranked as important to very important, except for use of an
independent facilitator, which is ranked as only somewhat important. The high
ranking rating for the best practices criteria is consistent with the survey results in
previous studies by the sustainable planning research program at Simon Fraser
University (Calbick et al. 2003, Albert et al. 2003, Frame et al. 2004, Gunton et
Table 1. Evaluation Criteria for Planning Processes
Process Criteria
1. Purpose and Incentives: Process is driven by a shared purpose and provides
incentives for participants to participate and work toward a consensus outcome.
2. Inclusive Representation: All parties (including publics and government) with an
interest in the issues and outcomes of the process are involved throughout the
process.
3. Voluntary Participation and Commitment: Parties who are affected or interested in
the process participate voluntarily and are committed to the process.
4. Equal Opportunities and Resources: The process provides for equal and
balanced opportunities for all parties to participate effectively (e.g. funding and
training)
5. Self Design: Participants are adequately involved in the design of the process and
are able to influence the process on an ongoing basis.
6. Clear Ground Rules: Procedural ground rules and roles of the participants are
clearly defined.
7. Principled Negotiation and Respect: Participants demonstrate respect and
understanding of other stakeholders’ interests and are able to communicate and
negotiate effectively.
8. High Quality Information: Process provides adequate high quality information for
effective decision-making.
9. Flexible, Adaptive and Creative: Flexibility is designed into the process to allow for
adaptation and creativity in problem solving.
10. Time Limits: Realistic milestones and deadlines are managed throughout the
process.
11. Accountability: The process and participants represent and effectively
communicate with the broader public.
12. Effective Process Management: The process is structured and managed in an
effective and neutral manner.
13. Independent Facilitation: The process uses a trained, independent facilitator
throughout the process.
continued...
104 Environments 34(3)
© Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires.
al. 2005). These results confirm the validity of the best practices criteria used to
evaluate the planning process.
Tables 2, 3, and 4 summarize the responses measuring the degree to which
the best practices criteria were met in the planning process. Criteria are ranked
as met, not met, or neutral (neither met nor unmet). For the criterion to be con-
sidered “met”, it must receive scores greater than or equal to 0.50 by both plan-
ners and stakeholders. For a criterion to be considered “not met”, it must receive
a score less than or equal to -0.50 by both planners and stakeholders. Criteria
not falling into these two categories are considered neither met nor unmet, which
Table 1, continued
Outcome Criteria
1. Perceived as Successful: The process and outcomes are perceived as successful
by participants.
2. Clear Objectives: The plan produced clearly defined purpose and objectives.
3. Conflict Reduced: As a result of the process, conflicts are reduced.
4. Creative and Innovative: Process produces creative and innovative ideas and
outcomes.
5. Knowledge Understanding and Skills: Stakeholders gain knowledge,
understanding and skills as a result of their participation in the process.
6. Relationships and Social Capital: The process created new working relationships
and social capital among participants.
7. Information: The process produces new and improved information through joint
fact-finding that stakeholders understand and accept as accurate.
8. Public Interest: Plan outcomes serve the common good or general public interest.
9. Understanding and Support of CP: The process results in increased
understanding and support of collaborative approaches to planning.
Implementation Criteria
1. Clear Strategy for Implementation and Monitoring: Process develops a clear
strategy for implementing objectives and strategies.
2. Commitment to Implementation. At the end of the process, participants and
agencies share a strong commitment to plan implementation.
3. Support for Implementation: Public and government support for the plan is strong.
4. Appropriate Indicators: Plan objectives are monitored with appropriate indicators.
5. Quality Information: Adequate quality information is available to make decisions
with respect to plan implementation.
6. Adequate Resources: There is an adequate level of staff and financial resources
for plan implementation.
7. Skills and Authority: Those responsible for plan implementation possess the
necessary skills and authority.
8. Enforcement: Adequate enforcement of the rules and regulations occurs.
9. Regulatory Framework: The legal and regulatory framework is adequate to
achieve implementation.
10. Accountability: There is adequate public reporting of plan implementation.
11. Continued Stakeholder Involvement: Stakeholders are involved in implementation
and monitoring activities.
12. Ease of Implementation: Participation of stakeholders results in easier plan
implementation.
13. Perceived as Successful: Implementation of plans has been successful in terms of
meeting plan goals and interests of the stakeholders.
105
© Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires.
T.C. Ronmark, T.I. Gunton and P.W. Williams
is recorded as neutral.
The responses in Table 2 for process criteria show that only 3 of 13 process
criteria were met. The remaining criteria were classified as neutral (neither met
nor unmet). The results indicate a need for extensive improvement in the pro-
tected area planning process. It is also important to note that there is significant
variation in responses between park planners and stakeholders. Park planners’
rated 10 criteria as met with an average rating of 0.77. Stakeholders rated only
4 criteria as met with an average rating of -0.03. Clearly, there is a wide differ-
ence in rating perception between the park planners and the stakeholders who
participated in the process.
Table 3 summarizes the responses on outcome criteria. The results indi-
cate a high level of success with 6 of 9 outcome criteria being met. Further, there
is only one criterion (reduced conflicts) for which planners’ and stakeholders’
results varied significantly (i.e. >1.0). Based on park planners’ ratings, all 9 cri-
teria are met and the average rating is 1.32. Stakeholders rank 6 criteria as met
and have an average rating of 0.79. None of the outcome criteria are classified
as unmet.
Figure 2. Importance Ranking of Planning Criteria by Stakeholders
somewhat important
not important important
very important
106 Environments 34(3)
© Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires.
Table 2. Summary of average responses for Process Criteria
Process Criteria
Stake-
holders’
Response
Planners’
Response
Weighted
Average
Criteria
met?
1. Purpose and Incentives: Process is
driven by a shared purpose and provides
incentives for participants to participate
and work toward a consensus outcome.
0.35 0.57 0.46 neutral
2. Inclusive Representation: All parties
(including publics and government) with
an interest in the issues and outcomes of
the process are involved throughout the
process.
0.54 1.18 0.86 met
3. Voluntary Participation and Commitment:
Parties who are affected or interested in
the process participate voluntarily and are
committed to the process.
0.10 1.11 0.60 neutral
4. Equal Opportunities and Resources: The
process provides for equal and balanced
opportunities for all parties to participate
effectively (e.g. funding and training)
-0.67 0.29 -0.19 neutral
5. Self Design: Participants are adequately
involved in the design of the process and
are able to influence the process on an
ongoing basis.
0.05 1.00 0.53 neutral
6. Clear Ground Rules: Procedural ground
rules and roles of the participants were
clearly defined.
0.64 1.34 0.99 met
7. Principled Negotiation and Respect:
Participants demonstrate respect and
understanding of other stakeholders’
interests and are able to communicate and
negotiate effectively.
-0.67 0.75 0.04 neutral
8. High Quality Information: Process provides
adequate high quality information for
effective decision-making.
-0.70 0.03 -0.33 neutral
9. Flexible, Adaptive and Creative: Flexibility
is designed into the process to allow
for adaptation and creativity in problem
solving.
0.65 1.25 0.95 met
10. Time Limits: Realistic milestones and
deadlines are managed throughout the
process.
-0.21 1.06 0.43 neutral
11. Accountability: The process and
participants represent and effectively
communicate with the broader public.
-0.12 0.95 0..42 neutral
12. Effective Process Management: The
process is structured and managed in an
effective and neutral manner.
-0.38 0.63 0.13 neutral
13. Independent Facilitation: The process
uses a trained, independent facilitator
throughout the process.
1.11 0.44 0.78 neutral
Average Scores -0.03 0.77 0.36
Summary: 3 criteria met ; 10 neutral
107
© Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires.
T.C. Ronmark, T.I. Gunton and P.W. Williams
The outcome criteria fall into two general categories. The first category is
what can be termed social capital benefits of the planning process. These bene-
fits include improved knowledge, information, and improved relationships among
stakeholders (criteria 5, 6, and 7). Planners and stakeholders strongly agree that
the process met the social capital criteria. The second category of outcomes
relate to the extent to which the final plan meets the interests of the stakeholders
and the public. While park planners agree that the process met these outcome
criteria, stakeholders rank three of the outcome criteria as neutral: perceived
as successful (1), conflict reduced (3), and creative and innovative outcomes
(4). However, it is important to note that failure of the process to meet strongly
the interests of stakeholders may be an inevitable outcome of multi-stakeholder
negotiations in which each stakeholder is required to compromise to develop
a consensus based plan that meets the public interest. This interpretation is
reinforced by the fact that stakeholders agree that plans met the common good
(criterion 8), even though they did not meet the individual interests of the specific
stakeholder group.
Table 3. Summary of average responses for Outcome Criteria
Outcome Criteria
Stake-
holders’
Response
Planners’
Response
Weighted
Average
Criteria
met?
1. Perceived as Successful: The process and
outcomes are perceived as successful by
participants.
0.05 0.89 0.47 neutral
2. Clear Objectives: The plan produces
clearly defined purpose and objectives. 1.30 1.33 1.32 met
3. Conflict Reduced: As a result of the
process, conflicts are reduced. -0.17 1.11 0.47 neutral
4. Creative and Innovative: Process produces
creative and innovative ideas and
outcomes.
0.20 0.56 0.38 neutral
5. Knowledge, Understanding and
Skills: Stakeholders gain knowledge,
understanding and skills as a result of their
participation in the process.
1.15 1.56 1.36 met
6. Relationships and Social Capital: The
process creates new working relationships
and social capital among participants.
1.00 1.51 1.26 met
7. Information: The process produces new
and improved information through joint
fact-finding that stakeholders understand
and accept as accurate.
1.20 2.00 1.60 met
8. Public Interest: Plan outcomes serve the
common good or general public interest. 1.00 1.67 1.34 met
9. Understanding and Support of CP: The
process results in increased understanding
and support of collaborative approaches to
planning.
1.08 1.40 1.24 met
Average Scores 0.79 1.32 1.07
Summary: 6 criteria met; 3 neutral
108 Environments 34(3)
© Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires.
Responses for implementation criteria summarized in Table 4 indicate only
1 of 13 criteria is classified as met and the remaining criteria are classified as
neutral. Again, there is significant variation in responses between park planners
and stakeholders. Based on park planners’ ratings, 7 criteria are met and the
average rating for all criteria combined is 0.63. Stakeholders rank only 1 criterion
as met and have an average overall rating of -0.33. The criterion with the lowest
rating (criterion 6) pertains to inadequate resources for implementation.
Several interesting findings emerge from the evaluation. First, there is a
significant variation in responses between park planners and other stakeholders.
Park planners provided more positive evaluations of the planning outcomes, the
planning process, and the implementation process. This should not be sur-
prising, given that the planners are evaluating a process that they designed and
managed and therefore have a bias in assessing positively. Nonetheless, this
disparity in perception between planners and stakeholders confirms the need
for extensive stakeholder involvement in protected area master planning to
ensure inclusion of stakeholder interests. Second, the average ranking for plan-
ning outcomes (1.07) was more positive than the average ranking for the plan-
ning process (0.36) and the implementation process (0.13). This is somewhat
anomalous given that good processes are assumed to be necessary for good
outcomes. This finding suggests that more research on the correlation between
process and outcomes would be beneficial. Third, the principle benefits of the
planning process relate to building social capital among stakeholders, instead of
producing a plan. This indicates that evaluation of planning processes should
not be restricted to assessing only the final plan product.
The open ended responses were assessed by grouping responses by cat-
egories and calculating the frequency that each category was mentioned. The
open ended responses confirmed the findings summarized above. The key
strength of the process was the building of social capital. The key weakness
was lack of resources to support the planning process.
Limitations of the evaluation methodology should also be noted. The
principle limitation is that the method focuses on evaluating only the planning
process based on the perceptions of stakeholders. While evaluating the plan-
ning process is an essential component of evaluation, it needs to be comple-
mented by an evaluation of outcomes based on monitoring key environmental,
social, and economic indicators. It should also be noted that the case study used
to illustrate and test the evaluation framework has the further limitation of relying
on a small sample of stakeholders who may not accurately represent stake-
holder perceptions. The specific findings based on the survey should therefore
be interpreted with caution.
Conclusions
The case study confirms the utility of the methodology developed for evaluating
the park planning process. The methodology based on 35 best practices pro-
vides a comprehensive assessment of strengths and weaknesses in the plan-
ning process and clearly identifies how the process can be improved. It should
also be noted that while the evaluation methodology was applied to park plan-
ning, it can be used to evaluate any planning process.
109
© Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires.
T.C. Ronmark, T.I. Gunton and P.W. Williams
The survey results from the case study need to be interpreted with caution
because they rely on a small sample. Nonetheless, the survey findings pro-
vide several important insights into the planning process that should be explored
in future research. First, the survey results show wide variation in responses
between park planners and other stakeholders. Park planners consistently
Table 4. Summary of average responses for Implementation Criteria
Implementation Criteria
Stake-
holders’
Response
Planners’
Response
Weighted
Average
Criteria
met?
1. Clear Strategy for Implementation and
Monitoring: Process develops a clear
strategy for implementing objectives and
strategies.
0.18 1.06 0.62 neutral
2. Commitment to Implementation: At the end
of the process, participants and agencies
share a strong commitment to plan
implementation.
0.05 1.01 0.53 neutral
3. Support for Implementation: Public and
government support for the plan is strong. -0.19 0.74 0.27 neutral
4. Appropriate Indicators: Plan objectives are
monitored with appropriate indicators. -0.11 0.56 0.23 neutral
5. Quality Information: Adequate quality
information is available to make decisions
with respect to plan implementation.
0.22 0.11 0.17 neutral
6. Adequate Resources: There is an
adequate level of staff and financial
resources for plan implementation.
-1.69 -0.47 -1.08 neutral
7. Skills and Authority: Those responsible
for plan implementation possess the
necessary skills and authority.
-0.49 1.01 0.26 neutral
8. Enforcement: Adequate enforcement of the
rules and regulations occurs. -0.45 1.00 0.23 neutral
9. Regulatory Framework: The legal and
regulatory framework is adequate to
achieve implementation.
-0.95 0.33 -0.31 neutral
10. Accountability: There is adequate public
reporting of plan implementation. -1.05 0.00 -0.53 neutral
11. Continued Stakeholder Involvement:
Stakeholders are involved in
implementation and monitoring activities.
-0.89 0.13 -0.38 neutral
12. Ease of Implementation: Participation
of stakeholders results in easier plan
implementation.
1.20 1.51 1.36 met
13. Perceived as Successful: Implementation
of plans has been successful in terms of
meeting plan goals and interests of the
stakeholders.
-0.20 0.60 0.20 neutral
Average Score -0.33 0.63 0.13
Summary: 1 criteria met; 12 neutral
110 Environments 34(3)
© Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires.
provide more positive assessments of the planning process than other stake-
holders. This difference in perception illustrates the importance of having all
stakeholders involved collaboratively in plan development and plan evaluation
to ensure that the plan reflects the broader range of public interest. Second,
the ranking for planning outcomes was significantly higher than the ratings for
process and implementation. This suggests that the process and implementa-
tion criteria may not be as important in achieving desirable outcomes as planning
theory suggests. Third, the findings show that less tangible outcomes such as
building social capital are as important to stakeholders as the final plan product.
This provides another important rationale for collaborative planning.
It should again be noted that the methodology used in the case study relies
on stakeholder perceptions to assess only one component of planning: the plan-
ning process. Therefore, the methodology needs to be complemented by other
performance measures based on ecological, social, and economic indicators to
assess the degree to which the planning process is meeting its outcome objec-
tives. Nonetheless, the methodology is clearly a useful and necessary compo-
nent of any planning evaluation process.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank SSHRC for funding support for this research and the
anonymous referees for their helpful suggestions.
References
Albert, K., Thomas I. Gunton and J.C. Day. 2003. Achieving Effective Implemen-
tation: An Evaluation of a Collaborative Land Use Planning Process. Environ-
ments 31(3): 51-69.
British Columbia. BC Parks. 2000. Policy for the Development, Review and
Approval of BC Parks Management Plans. Victoria BC: Ministry of Environ-
ment, Lands and Parks.
British Columbia. Ministry of Environment and Parks (BCMEP). 1988. Striking
the Balance. Victoria, BC: Queen’s Printer.
Calbick, Ken, J.C. Day and Thomas I. Gunton. 2003. Land Use Planning Imple-
mentation: A Best Practice Assessment. Environments 31(3): 69-83.
Day, J.C., Thomas I. Gunton and T. M. Frame. 2003.Toward Environmental Sus-
tainability in BC: The Role of Collaborative Planning. Environments 31(2):
21-39.
Frame, T. M., Thomas I. Gunton and J.C. Day. 2004. Resolving Environmental
Disputes Through Collaborative Planning: A Case Study of Land Use Planning
in BC. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 47(1):59-83.
Gunton, Thomas I., J.C. Day and P.W. Williams. 2003. Evaluating Collaborative
Planning: The British Columbia Experience. Environments 31(3):1-11.
Gunton, Thomas I., Ken Calbick, Karen Albert, Chris Joseph, and J.C. Day. April
2005. Planning Implementation: Lessons from the Field. Proceedings of the
Planning Institute of British Columbia Annual Conference, Victoria, April 19-
22.
Hockings, Marc, Sue Stolton, and Nigel Dudley. 2000. Evaluating Effectiveness:
111
© Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires.
T.C. Ronmark, T.I. Gunton and P.W. Williams
A Framework for Assessing the Management of Protected Areas. Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN.
Hockings, Marc, Sue Stolton, and Nigel Dudley. 2004. Management Effective-
ness: Assessing Management of Protected Areas. Journal of Environmental
Policy and Planning 6(2): 157–174.
Joseph, Chris, Thomas I. Gunton, and J.C. Day. 2007. Planning Implementa-
tion: An Evaluation of the Strategic Land Use Planning Framework in British
Columbia. Journal of Environmental Management (in press).
Legacy Panel. 1999. Sustaining our Protected Areas System: Final Report of the
Legacy Panel: the Panel’s recommendations for enhancing long-term sus-
tainability of BC’s protected areas system. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Environ-
ment, Lands and Parks.
Mackinnon, J. and K. Mackinnon. 1986. Managing Protected Areas in the Tropics.
Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Nelson, J.G., J.C. Day, Lucy Sportza, James Loucky, and Carlos Vasquez,
eds. 2003. Protected Areas and the Regional Planning Imperative in North
America. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.
Parrish, J., D. Braun, and R. Unnasch. 2003. Are We Conserving What We Say
We Are? Measuring Ecological Integrity within Protected Areas. BioScience
53(9): 851-860.
Ronmark, Tracy. 2005. Evaluating the Role of Collaborative Planning in BC’s
Parks and Protected Areas Management Planning Process. Unpublished
Master’s Thesis. Burnaby, B.C.: Simon Fraser University.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our
Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press.
