UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The representation of outdoor recreation in land-use planning in British Columbia Harshaw, Howard W. 2005

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2006-130024.pdf [ 26.19MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0075063.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0075063-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0075063-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0075063-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0075063-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0075063-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0075063-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0075063-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0075063.ris

Full Text

THE R E P R E S E N T A T I O N O F OUTDOOR R E C R E A T I O N IN L A N D - U S E PLANNING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA by H O W A R D W. H A R S H A W H.B.O.R. Lakehead University, 1995 B.A. Lakehead University, 1995 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE R E Q U I R E M E N T S FOR THE D E G R E E OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY O F G R A D U A T E STUDIES (FORESTRY) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December 2005 © Howard W. Harshaw, 2005 Abstract The cases of recreation in the Sea-to-Sky Corridor and Peace Foothills in British Columbia are used to explore the issues of the representation of outdoor recreation in land-use planning and the participation of recreationists in land-use planning. The widening array of outdoor recreation activities in high-use areas poses new challenges to the equitable participation of diverse recreation user groups in land-use planning. How well have past land-use planning exercises represented the needs of outdoor recreationists? How well represented do participants of newer recreation activities feel? Moreover, who should represent these diverse groups? There has, to date, been very little research in this area. In an attempt to explore these questions and begin building a theoretical framework for understanding key relationships, this study measures recreationists' perceptions of representation in land-use planning and their participation in land-use planning in the Sea-to-Sky Corridor and Peace Foothills. Relationships between recreation use and socio-economic characteristics and recreationists' participation and perceptions of representation in land-use planning were examined. Moderate levels of perceived representation were found for most recreation groups, although some users seemed unclear about how well they were represented. In sum, some socio-economic characteristics (household income, age, and education) were associated with a person's participation in land-use planning; this influence extended to perceived representation through aspects of social capital, as membership in an outdoor recreation club and degree of recreation specialization were associated with perceived representation. The localness of recreationists played a role in their participation in land-use planning; localness also was associated with perceived representation. Outdoor recreation characteristics (recreation specialization, activity choice, the number of activities participated in, annual participation, and club membership) had an influence on recreationists' likelihood of participation in land-use planning. Logistic regression models suggested that recreation specialization and household income contributed to respondents' perceptions of representation in land-use planning; age, recreation specialization, the number of recreation activities participated in, club membership, and local residence contributed to respondents' likelihood of having been a participant of a land-use planning process. The results of this study support four land-use planning strategies that may assist planners in increasing actual and perceived representation of recreationists. Keywords: outdoor recreation; perceived representation; forest land-use planning; public participation; recreation specialization; social capital. Table of contents Abstract ii Table of Contents iii List of Tables . . . xii List of Figures xvii List of Symbols and Abbreviations xviii Acknowledgements xix Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1. Context and Rationale . . . 1 1.1.1 Why is the Representation of Recreation Interests Important? 5 1.1.1.1 Ethical Reasons for Explicitly Addressing Outdoor Recreation Interests in Forest Land-Use Planning 5 1.1.1.2 Pragmatic Reasons for Explicitly Addressing Outdoor Recreation Interests in Forest Land-Use Planning 6 1.1.1.3 Economic Reasons for Explicitly Addressing Outdoor Recreation Interests in Forest Land-Use Planning 8 1.1.1.4 Legislative & Policy Reasons for Explicitly Addressing Outdoor Recreation Interests in Forest Land-Use Planning 9 1.1.1.5 Certification Reasons for Explicitly Addressing Outdoor Recreation Interests in Forest Land-Use Planning 11 1.2. Toward a Conceptual Framework for Recreationist Involvement in Forest Land-Use Planning . 12 1.2.1 Contributing Factors to Perceived Representation in Land-Use Planning 13 1.2.1.1 Procedural Fairness 14 1.2.1.2 Distributive Fairness 14 1.2.2 Summary of Framework Describing Recreationist involvement in Forest Land-use Planning 15 1.3. Research Objectives 18 iv 1.4. Broad Study Approach 19 1.5. Study Area Descriptions . . . . 20 1.5.1 The Sea-to-Sky Corridor Study Area 20 1.5.2 The Peace Foothills Study Area 23 1.6. Organization of Thesis 25 Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theoretical Development 26 2.1. Introduction 26 2.2. Perspectives on Public Participation 26 2.2.1 Democratic Traditions 27 2.2.1.1 Participatory Democracy 27 2.2.1.2 Representative Democracy 27 2.2.2 Approaches to Public Participation 28 2.2.3 Challenges of Public Participation 33 2.3. Land-Use Planning in British Columbia 37 2.3.1 The Commission on Resources and the Environment and Land and Resource Management Planning 39 2.3.2 Land and Resource Management Plans 40 2.3.2.1 The Dawson Creek L R M P 41 2.3.2.2 The Sea-to-Sky L R M P 41 2.3.3 Evaluations Of Core And L R M P s 43 2.3.4 Sustainable Forest Management Certification 44 2.3.4.1 Canadian Forest Products Ltd. TFL 48 C S A Certification 45 2.3.5 Management of Recreation Settings in BC 46 2.3.6 Implications for the Representation Of Recreation in B C 47 2.4. Social Capital, Social Networks, and Leisure 48 2.4.1 Social Capital 49 2.4.2 Social Networks 51 2.4.3 Social Values 54 2.5. Recreation Experience Characteristics 55 2.5.1 Recreation Experience Levels & Recreation Specialization 56 2.5.1.1 Limitations and Criticisms of Recreation Specialization 58 2.5.1.2 Measuring Recreation Specialization 60 2.5.1.3 Implications of Recreation Specialization for Participation in Land-Use Planning . . . 61 2.5.2 The Influence of Other Recreationist Characteristics 62 2.6. Theoretical Development 63 2.6.1 Synthesis of Social Capital, Recreation Specialization and Other Characteristics in Recreationists' Involvement 64 2.6.2 Propositions and Supporting Hypotheses 65 V 2.6.2.1 Proposition 1: Socio-economic and demographic variables, including biographical availability, are associated with a person's participation in land-use planning 65 2.6.2.2 Proposition 2: Socio-economic and demographic variables are associated with a person's perceptions of whether their recreation needs have been represented in land-use planning through aspects of social capital 66 2.6.2.3 Proposition 3: The degree of a recreationist's actual involvement in land-use planning influences their perceived representation 67 2.6.2.4 Proposition 4: There is a relationship between a person's opinions of the abilities of the people or organizations that typically play roles in land-use planning and their perceptions of the representation of their recreation needs and interests in land-use planning processes 67 2.6.2.5 Proposition 5: There is a relationship between outdoor recreation user characteristics and perceptions of the representation of recreation needs in land-use planning 68 2.6.2.6 Proposition 6: There is a relationship between outdoor recreation characteristics and participation in land-use planning 69 2.6.2.7 Proposition 7: There is a relationship between the degree of localness a recreationist possesses and their feelings about the representation of recreation and their participation in land-use planning 70 Chapter 3: Sample and Question Design 71 3.1. Introduction 71 3.2. Pilot Study 71 3.3. Sample Design 73 3.3.1 Recreationist Sample 73 3.3.2 Recreation Representative Sample 75 3.4. Questionnaire Design 76 3.4.1 Recreationist Survey 76 3.4.1.1 Section 1: Map Question 76 3.4.1.2 Section 2: Outdoor Recreation Activity Participation 77 3.4.1.3 Section 3: Outdoor Recreation Activity Importance and Location 77 3.4.1.4 Section 4: Outdoor Recreation Participation and Substitution 78 3.4.1.5 Section 5: Outdoor Recreation Club Membership 79 3.4.1.6 Section 6: Local Outdoor Recreation Use 79 3.4.1.7 Section 7: Land-Use Planning Participation 81 3.4.1.8 Section 8: Outdoor Recreation Representation 82 3.4.1.9 Section 9: Demographic Information 83 3.4.1.10 Section 10: Recent Outdoor Recreation Trip Information 84 3.4.2 Recreation Representative Survey 85 vi 3.4.2.1 Section 1: Outdoor Recreation Activity Participation 85 3.4.2.2 Section 2: Outdoor Recreation Activity Importance and Location 86 3.4.2.3 Section 3: Outdoor Recreation Club Membership 86 3.4.2.4 Section 4: Local Outdoor Recreation Use 87 3.4.2.5 Section 5: Land-use Planning Representative Experience 87 3.4.2.6 Section 6: Outdoor Recreation Representation 88 3.4.2.7 Section 7: Land-use Planning Process Characteristics 89 3.4.2.8 Section 8: Reactions of Representatives to Perceptions of Recreation Participants . 90 3.4.2.9 Section 9: Demographic Information 91 3.5. Conclusion 92 Chapter 4: Survey of Recreationists Results 93 4.1. Introduction 93 4.2. Recreation Activity Aggregation - Methodological Approaches 93 4.2.1 British Columbia Ministry of Forests Recreation Features Inventory 93 4.2.2 US National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 94 4.2.3 British Columbia Ministry of Forests Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 94 4.2.4 Ad Hoc Classification 95 4.2.5 Principal Components Analysis 95 4.2.6 Recreation Specialization 95 4.2.6.1 Aggregate Recreation Participation Measure 96 4.2.6.2 Aggregate Number of Important Activities Measure 96 4.2.6.3 Relative Recreation Specialization Indicator 97 4.2.7 Recreation Activity Aggregation Implementation 98 4.3. Methods of Analysis 99 4.3.1 Sample Characteristics 99 4.3.1.1 Demographic Characteristics 100 4.3.1.2 Characteristics of Recreation Use 100 4.3.1.3 Characteristics of Perceived Representation 101 4.3.1.4 Characteristics of Participation in Land-Use Planning 102 4.3.2 Research Propositions and Hypotheses 102 4.3.2.1 Proposition 4: There is a relationship between a person's opinions of the abilities of the people or organizations that typically play roles in land-use planning and their perceptions of the representation of their recreation needs and interests in land-use planning processes 105 4.4. Results 105 4.4.1 Sample Characteristics 105 4.4.1.1 Demographic Characteristics 106 4.4.1.2 Characteristics of Recreation Use 110 vii 4.4.1.2.1 Recreation Activity Participation 110 AAA .2.2 Annual Recreation Participation 113 4.4.1.2.3 Location of Recreation Pursuit 114 4.4.1.2.4 Travel Distance 115 4.4.1.3 Characteristics of Perceived Representation 115 4.4.1.4 Characteristics of Participation in Land-Use Planning 116 4.4.2 Proposition 1: Socio-economic and demographic variables, including biographical availability, are associated with a person's participation in land-use planning 120 4.4.3 Proposition 2: Socio-economic and demographic variables are associated with a person's perceptions of whether their recreation needs have been represented in land-use planning through aspects of social capital 123 4.4.4 Proposition 3: The degree of a recreationist's actual involvement in land-use planning influences their perceived representation 126 4.4.5 Proposition 4: There is a relationship between a person's opinions of the abilities of the people or organizations that typically play roles in land-use planning and their perceptions of the representation of their recreation needs and interests in land-use planning processes 126 4.4.6 Proposition 5: There is a relationship between outdoor recreation user characteristics and perceptions of the representation of recreation needs in land-use planning 130 4.4.7 Proposition 6: There is a relationship between outdoor recreation characteristics and participation in land-use planning 133 4.4.8 Proposition 7: There is a relationship between the degree of localness a recreationist possesses and their feelings about the representation of recreation and their participation in land-use planning 136 4.5. Discussion 137 4.5.1 Sample Characteristics 137 4.5.1.1 Demographic Characteristics 137 4.5.1.2 Characteristics of Recreation Use 138 4.5.1.3 Characteristics of Perceived Representation 140 4.5.1.4 Characteristic of Participation in Land-Use Planning 141 4.5.2 Proposition 1: Socio-economic and demographic variables, including biographical availability, are associated with a person's participation in land-use planning 145 4.5.3 Proposition 2: Socio-economic and demographic variables are associated with a person's perceptions of whether their recreation needs have been represented in land-use planning through aspects of social capital 146 4.5.4 Proposition 3: The degree of a recreationist's actual involvement in land-use planning influences their perceived representation 148 viii 4.5.5 Proposition 4: There is a Relationship Between a Person's Opinions of the Abilities of the People or Organizations that Typically Play Roles in Land-use Planning and their Perceptions of the Representation of their Recreation Needs and Interests in Land-Use Planning Processes 149 4.5.6 Proposition 5: There is a relationship between outdoor recreation user characteristics and perceptions of the representation of recreation needs in land-use planning 150 4.5.7 Proposition 6: There is a Relationship Between Outdoor Recreation Characteristics and Participation in Land-Use Planning 152 4.5.8 Proposition 7: There is a Relationship Between the Degree of Localness a Recreationist Possesses and their Feelings about the Representation of Recreation and their Participation in Land-Use Planning 156 4.6. Conclusion 157 Chapter 5: Recreation Representatives' Experiences 161 5.1. Introduction 161 5.2. Methods of Analysis 162 5.2.1 Recreation Specialization 162 5.3. Results 162 5.3.1 Demographic Characteristics 162 5.3.1.1 Sea-to-Sky Corridor Representatives 163 5.3.1.2 Peace Foothills Representatives 163 5.3.2 Recreation Use Characteristics of Representatives 163 5.3.2.1 Recreation Activity Participation 163 5.3.2.2 Annual Recreation Avidity 164 5.3.2.3 Location of Recreation Pursuit 165 5.3.2.4 Outdoor Recreation Club Membership 165 5.3.2.5 Recreation Specialization 165 5.3.3 Representatives' Participation in Planning Characteristics 166 5.3.4 Representation of Outdoor Recreation 169 5.3.4.1 Sea-to-Sky Corridor Representatives 169 5.3.4.2 Peace Foothills Representatives 171 5.3.5 Comparison of Representatives'and Recreationists'Responses 173 5.3.5.1 Demographic Characteristics of Representatives and Recreationists 173 5.3.5.2 Recreation Use Characteristics of Representatives and Recreationists 174 5.3.5.3 Perceptions of Representation of Representatives and Recreationists 174 5.4. Discussion 176 5.4.1 Sample Characteristics 176 5.4.1.1 Demographic Characteristics 176 5.4.1.2 Recreation Use Characteristics 177 ix 5.4.1.3 Participation In Planning Characteristics and Perceptions of Representation 179 5.4.2 Proposition 1: Socio-economic and demographic variables, including biographical availability, are associated with a person's participation in land-use planning 186 5.4.3 Proposition 2: Socio-economic and demographic variables are associated with a person's perceptions of whether their recreation needs have been represented in land-use planning through aspects of social capital 187 5.4.4 Proposition 3: The degree of a recreationist's actual involvement in land-use planning influences their perceived representation 187 5.4.5 Proposition 4: There is a Relationship Between a Person's Opinions of the Abilities of the People or Organizations that Typically Play Roles in Land-use Planning and their Perceptions of the Representation of their Recreation Needs and Interests in Land-Use Planning Processes 188 5.4.6 Proposition 5: There is a relationship between outdoor recreation user characteristics and perceptions of the representation of recreation needs in land-use planning 188 5.4.7 Proposition 6: There is a Relationship Between Outdoor Recreation Characteristics and Participation in Land-Use Planning 189 5.4.8 Proposition 7: There is a Relationship Between the Degree of Localness a Recreationist Possesses and their Feelings about the Representation of Recreation and their Participation in Land-Use Planning 190 5.5. Conclusion 190 Chapter 6: Logistic Regression Models for Perceived Representation and Planning Participation 193 6.1. Introduction . . 193 6.2. Methods of Analysis 194 6.3. Results 195 6.3.1 Preliminary Analysis of Independent Variables 196 6.3.1.1 Significant Correlations: Sea-to-Sky Corridor 197 6.3.1.2 Significant Correlations: Peace Foothills 198 6.3.2 Model Identification: Relative Recreation Specialization Indicator & Component Variables 199 6.3.2.1 Perceived Representation Models 199 6.3.2.2 Participation in Land-Use Planning 202 6.3.3 Perceived Representation Model Application: Study Areas 203 6.3.3.1 Sea-to-Sky Corridor Perceived Representation Model 204 6.3.3.2 Peace Foothills Perceived Representation Model 205 6.3.4 Participation in Land-use Planning Model Application: Study Areas 206 6.3.4.1 Sea-to-Sky Corridor Planning Participation Model 207 6.3.4.2 Peace Foothills Planning Participation Model 208 6.4. Discussion 209 X 6.4.1 Model Results 209 6.4.2 Proposition 1: Socio-economic and demographic variables, including biographical availability, are associated with a person's participation in land-use planning 215 6.4.3 Proposition 2: Socio-economic and demographic variables are associated with a person's perceptions of whether their recreation needs have been represented in land-use planning through aspects of social capital 216 6.4.6 Proposition 5: There is a relationship between outdoor recreation user characteristics and perceptions of the representation of recreation needs in land-use planning 216 6.4.7 Proposition 6: There is a Relationship Between Outdoor Recreation Characteristics and Participation in Land-Use Planning 217 6.4.8 Proposition 7: There is a Relationship Between the Degree of Localness a Recreationist Possesses and their Feelings about the Representation of Recreation and their Participation in Land-Use Planning 217 6.5. Conclusion 217 Chapter 7: Synthesis and Conclusions 220 7.1. Introduction 220 7.2. Research Propositions and Hypotheses 223 7.3. Theoretical Implications 233 7.3.1 Participatory Process Factors 233 7.3.2 Role of Recreation Specialization 233 7.3.3 Further Research Needs 234 7.3.3.1 Socio-economic Characteristics of Planning Participation Among Recreationists . . . 234 7.3.3.2 Recreation Specialization and Perceived Representation 235 7.4. Practical Implications 235 7.4.1 Incorporate Meaningful Measures of Recreation Characteristics to Identify Potential Stakeholder Representatives 236 7.4.2 Make Opportunities for Meaningful Public Input Into Land-Use Planning More Accessible 237 7.4.3 Build Trust Among Recreation Stakeholders 238 7.4.4 Facilitate Communication Between Recreation Stakeholders and their Representatives Must be Strengthened 238 7.5. Conclusion 239 Bibliography . 242 Appendix A: Slocan Valley Pilot Questionnaire 258 Appendix B: Verbal Statement of Introduction 263 xi Appendix C: Recreationists' Questionnaire Cover Letter 264 Appendix D: Recreationists' Questionnaires 267 Appendix E: Recreation Representatives' Initial Contact Letter 276 Appendix F: Recreation Representatives' Questionnaire Cover Letter 278 Appendix G: Recreation Representatives' Questionnaires 283 Appendix H: Result Request Form 298 Appendix I: Recreation Representative Follow-Up Letters 299 Appendix J : Recreation Representative Telephone Follow-Up Script 302 Appendix K: Links between Research Propositions & Hypotheses and Questionnaire Items . . 304 Appendix L: Recreationist Survey Respondent Community of Origin 309 Appendix M: Recreationist Survey Respondent's Comments 312 Appendix N: Representatives' Comments on Recreationists' Degree of Perceived Representation. 316 XII List of tables Table 2.1. Characteristics of participatory and representative conceptions of democracy 28 Table 2.2. Participatory mechanisms 31 Table 2.3. Characteristics of meaningful public participation 36 Table 3.1. Study area sample sites 75 Table 3.2. Response options for activity engagement 79 Table 3.3. Response options for land-use planning participation 82 Table 3.4. Recreation activities with participants' reported feelings about being represented 91 Table 4.1. Outdoor recreation activity categories (total number of activities in each category in parentheses) 94 Table 4.2. Activity category membership size by degree of recreation specialization (Peace Foothills shaded); p < 0.05 bold 98 Table 4.3. Statistical methods employed to test research hypotheses 102 Table 4.4. Survey response rates 105 Table 4.5. Proportion of respondents by employment sector (Peace Foothills shaded); p < 0.05 bold 110 Table 4.6. During the past year, what outdoor recreation activities have you participated in, both inside and outside of the study area? Please check the box beside each activity that applies (Peace Foothills shaded); p < 0.05 bold 111 Table 4.7. Mean seasonal recreation participation (Peace Foothills shaded) 114 Table 4.8. Where do you most often engage in outdoor recreation activities? Please check all that apply (Peace Foothills shaded); p < 0.05 bold 114 Table 4.9. Proportion of respondents reporting representation in land-use planning (Peace Foothills shaded) 115 Table 4.10. Proportion of respondents that participated in land-use planning; p < 0.05 bold 116 Table 4.11. What prompted you to participate in this land-use planning exercise? Please check all that apply (Peace Foothills shaded); p < 0.05 bold 117 xiii Table 4.12. Sea-to-Sky Corridor land-use planning exercise identification and reported participation 118 Table 4.13. Peace Foothills land-use planning exercise identification and reported participation . . . 119 Table 4.14. Why haven't you participated in any land-use planning exercises? Please check all that apply (Peace Foothills shaded) 119 Table 4.15. Proportion of respondents reporting participation in land-use planning by household income category (Peace Foothills shaded) 120 Table 4.16. Proportion of respondents reporting participation in land-use planning by gender (Peace Foothills shaded) 121 Table 4.17. Proportion of respondents reporting participation in land-use planning by age category (Peace Foothills shaded) 121 Table 4.18. Proportion of respondents reporting participation in land-use planning by highest level of education achieved (Peace Foothills shaded) 122 Table 4.19. Proportion of respondents reporting perceived representation by household income category (Peace Foothills shaded) 123 Table 4.20. Proportion of respondents reporting perceived representation by highest level of education achieved (Peace Foothills shaded) 124 Table 4.21. Proportion of respondents reporting perceived representation by club membership (Peace Foothills shaded) 125 Table 4.22. Proportion of respondents that reported feeling represented by ranking of individual people's ability to represent recreation (Peace Foothills shaded) 128 Table 4.23. Proportion of respondents that reported feeling represented by ranking of club's ability to represent recreation (Peace Foothills shaded) 129 Table 4.24. Proportion of respondents that reported feeling represented by ranking of industry's ability to represent recreation (Peace Foothills shaded) 129 Table 4.25. Proportion of respondents that reported feeling represented by ranking of Government's ability to represent recreation (Peace Foothills shaded) 130 Table 4.26. Proportion of respondents that reported feeling that their recreation needs had been met in land-use planning by recreation specialization category 131 Table 4.27. Proportion of respondents that reported feeling that their recreation needs had been met in land-use planning by reaction activity of primary importance (Peace Foothills shaded) 132 Table 4.28. Proportion of respondents that reported feeling that their recreation needs had been met in land-use planning and Chi-square results for feelings of representation by location of recreation pursuit (Peace Foothills shaded) 133 Table 4.29. Proportion of respondents that reported feeling that their recreation needs had been met in land-use planning by recreation specialization category (Peace Foothills shaded) 134 xiv Table 4.30. Proportion of respondents that reported feeling that their recreation needs had been met in land-use planning by recreation activity of primary importance (Peace Foothills shaded) 134 Table 4.31. Proportion of respondents reporting participation in land-use planning by club membership (Peace Foothills shaded) 135 Table 4.32. Proportion of respondents reporting perceived representation by area residency (Peace Foothills shaded) 136 Table 4.33. Proportion of respondents reporting participation in land-use planning by area residency (Peace Foothills shaded) 136 Table 4.34. Summary of results for research propositions and hypotheses 143 Table 4.35. Variables to be included in the initial logistic regression models of recreation representation and land-use planning participation 160 Table 5.1. Representatives' outdoor recreation activity participation by study area 164 Table 5.2. Representatives' seasonal recreation participation 164 Table 5.3. Representatives' location of recreation pursuit (Peace Foothills shaded) 165 Table 5.4. Representative club memberships 165 Table 5.5. Representative participation in land-use planning processes (# representatives in parentheses) 166 Table 5.6. Commercial and non-commercial recreation stakeholders and organizations that were represented in Sea-to-Sky Corridor land-use planning processes 167 Table 5.7. Commercial and non-commercial recreation stakeholders and organizations that were represented in Peace Foothills land-use planning processes 168 Table 5.8. Recreation stakeholders and organizations that were identified as being notably absent in land-use planning processes 168 Table 5.9. Degree to which Sea-to-Sky Corridor recreationist perceptions of representation match representative experiences 170 Table 5.10. Rank (1-4) of proxy ability to represent recreation in land-use planning 171 Table 5.11. Degree to which Peace Foothills recreationist perceptions of representation match representative experiences 172 Table 5.12. Rank (1-4) of proxy ability to represent recreation in land-use planning 173 Table 5.13. Demographic characteristics of representatives and recreationists (Peace Foothills shaded) 173 Table 5.14. Recreation use characteristics of representatives and recreationists (Peace Foothills shaded) 174 Table 5.15. Participation in planning characteristics and perceptions of representation of representatives and recreationists (Peace Foothills shaded) 175 Table 5.16. Perceptions of representation (binary measure) of recreationists for activities not engaged in by representatives 176 Table 5.17. Implications of representatives' results for research propositions and hypotheses . . . . 183 XV Table 6.1. Independent variables to be considered in logistic regression models 193 Table 6.2. Summary of model runs for perceived representation and planning participation 194 Table 6.3. Significant correlations among the perceived representation model's independent variables for both study areas 196 Table 6.4. Significant correlations among the planning participation model's independent variables for both study areas 197 Table 6.5. Significant correlations among the perceived representation model's independent variables in the Sea-to-Sky Corridor 197 Table 6.6. Significant correlations among the planning participation model's independent variables in the Sea-to-Sky Corridor 198 Table 6.7. Significant correlations among the perceived representation model's independent variables in the Peace Foothills 198 Table 6.8. Significant correlations among the planning participation model's independent variables in the Peace Foothills 199 Table 6.9. Preliminary Models: Summary statistics (entry at p < 0.05; removal at p < 0.10) 200 Table 6.10. Significant predictor variables of perceived representation of recreation in forest land-use planning (combined study areas) 201 Table 6.11. Significant predictor variables of participation in land-use planning (combined study areas) 203 Table 6.12. Perceived representation model (with the relative recreation specialization indicator) for both study areas: Summary statistics (entry at p < 0.05; removal at p < 0.10) 204 Table 6.13. Significant predictor variables of perceived representation in land-use planning in the Sea-to-Sky Corridor 205 Table 6.14. Significant predictor variables of perceived representation in land-use planning in the Peace Foothills 205 Table 6.15. Participation in land-use planning model (with the relative recreation specialization indicator) for both study areas: Summary statistics (enter at p < 0.05; removal at p < 0.10) 206 Table 6.16. Significant predictor variables of participation in land-use planning in the Sea-to-Sky Corridor 207 Table 6.17. Significant predictor variables of participation in land-use planning in the Peace Foothills 208 Table 6.18. Summary of the influence of independent variables on models of perceived representation and planning participation 209 Table 6.19. Summary of significant predictor variables in the perceived representation logistic regression model 210 Table 6.20. Summary of significant predictor variables in the planning participation logistic regression model 211 Table 6.21. Summary of logistic regression results for research propositions and hypotheses 214 XVI Table 7.1. Summary of statistical results of research hypotheses 224 xvii List of figures Figure 1.1. Progression of public involvement in forestry issues (from Carrow, 1999) 4 Figure 1.2. Intensity of public participation mechanism and likelihood of success (adapted from Beierle & Cayford, 2002) 8 Figure 1.3. Theoretical framework for the representation of outdoor recreation needs and interests in forest land-use planning 16 Figure 1.4. Sea to Sky Study Area 21 Figure 1.5. Peace Foothills study area 24 Figure 2.1. A ladder of participation (Arnstein, 1969) 29 Figure 2.2. Characteristics of weak and strong representation 37 Figure 2.3. Theoretical framework for the representation of outdoor recreation needs and interests in forest land-use planning 64 Figure 4.1. Degree of recreation specialization by study area (Peace Foothills shaded) 98 Figure 4.2. Sea-to-Sky Corridor sample population age by gender (n = 646) 106 Figure 4.3. Peace Foothills sample population age by gender (n = 148) 107 Figure 4.4. Sea-to-Sky Corridor household income reporting (n = 597) 107 Figure 4.5. Peace Foothills household income reporting (n = 134) 108 Figure 4.6. Education levels of respondents by study site 109 Figure 4.7. Sea-to-Sky Corridor respondent rankings of representation proxies 126 Figure 4.8. Peace Foothills respondent rankings of representation proxies 127 Figure 4.9. Representative ability of proxies 127 Figure 7.1. Revised theoretical framework of perceived representation and participation in land-use planning . 232 xviii List of symbols and abbreviations AAC Annual Allowable Cut BC British Columbia BCMoF British Columbia Ministry of Forests BCMSRM British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management CCFM Canadian Council of Forest Ministers CI Confidence Interval CORE Commission of Resources and the Environment CSA Canadian Standards Association FMCBC Federation of Mountain Clubs of British Columbia FSC Forest Stewardship Council GDP Gross Domestic Product LICO Low Income Cut Off LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan LRUP Local Resource Use Plans NSRE National Survey on Recreation and Environment ORC Outdoor Recreation Council p Proportion PCA Principal Components Analysis PCCF Postal Code Conversion File PF Peace Foothills s Standard deviation S2S Sea-to-Sky Corridor SORCA Squamish Off-Road Cycling Association r Pearson's correlation RFI Recreation Features Inventory ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum TFL Tree Farm Licence WORCA Whistler Off-Road Cycling Association xix Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the contributions of my committee, Stephen Sheppard, Rob Kozak, and Don Luymes, for their support and patience over the years. Helpful suggestions and support were provided by Rick Rollins of Malaspina University College, Tom Pawlowski, Chris Platz, and Rob Bressette of B C Parks, Al Rodine and Dave Fitchett of the Ministry of Forests, and Norma Wilson and the Outdoor Recreation Council of BC. The Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning (CALP) at the University of British Columbia, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Canadian Forest Service, and Canadian Forest Products (Canfor) provided logistical and monetary support for this research. Finally, thank you to my family for the support and encouragement that they have demonstrated over the years. 1 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 CONTEXT AND RATIONALE The field of outdoor recreation is a multidisciplinary one, informed by many branches of learning including geography, psychology, and sociology. The multidisciplinary nature of outdoor recreation is in part a reflection of the different types of experiences that people seek in their pursuit of outdoor recreation activities, their motivations, and the relationships of outdoor recreation opportunities and settings to other land uses (Harshaw & Meitner, 2005). Many of the challenges faced by recreation practitioners seeking to provide recreation experiences, and the land-use planners who seek to incorporate recreation values into the broader landscape matrix, are management issues. Outdoor recreation management is primarily concerned with people management: the management of expectations and the management of the impacts that recreation participants have on one another and on the landscapes in which they pursue their activities. In this respect, outdoor recreation management is a social endeavour that attempts to balance the needs and desires of recreationists with the capacities of the natural environment on which they depend, as well as with other recreationists and other land-uses. One of the guiding principles of outdoor recreation management has been to provide high quality experiences to recreationists, which has traditionally been measured in terms of visitor satisfaction (Manning, 1999). Visitor satisfaction is a multidimensional concept, dependent upon resource, social and management settings, and is a subjective concept that is informed by (among other things) the socioeconomic characteristics and experiences of the recreationist. Understanding recreationists' satisfaction with land-use planning outcomes is important for managers to assess their success in meeting land-use objectives. The recognition of the contribution that non-timber amenities make to civic society has made outdoor . recreation an explicit concern for landscape managers and planners, in part due to the ubiquitous character and diversity of recreation participants as well as the pervasiveness of recreation opportunities across the landscape. Recreationists as a stakeholder group are distinct due to the nature of its diverse membership (Rollins & Robinson, 2002). The Recreationist Stakeholder Group is really an amalgamation of many diverse groups that may have little in common except for their pursuit of recreation activities in leisure time. As such, the recreationist stakeholder group presents a challenge to traditional conceptions of land-use planning as its members cut across strata of society that many other stakeholder groups do not. However, recreation stakeholders are typically lumped together in land-use planning into two broad groups: motorized activities and non-motorized activities; this grouping may mask commonalities shared by these two groups as well as differences among the activities and recreationists that comprise them. The recognition of recreation as a concern of land-use planners coincides with recent developments in the manner that land-use planning is practiced in British Columbia (BC), particularly the formalization of the role of public participation in land-use planning; this has served to raise expectations about the responsiveness of land-use planning to public needs and expectations. In an examination of public response to forest management plans in the United States, Vining & Tyler (1999) noted that, In order to improve responsiveness to the public and to develop more successful management plans, it is necessary to derive a deeper understanding of who the interested publics are, what their concerns and desires are, and what values, beliefs, and feelings underlie these concerns. This is also a moral imperative in a democratic society, (p. 21) These authors conclude that "[i]f decision-makers do not satisfy the public that they are listening and considering what members of the public say, then the political process begins to break down" (p. 23). This assertion is supported by Smith & McDonough (2001), who characterized satisfaction with land-use decisions in terms of fairness: "it is essential for public participation efforts to be conducted fairly in the eyes of citizens" (p. 239). Thus, recreationists, as both members of civic society and a recognized stakeholder group, have a legitimate need for involvement in land-use planning along with other stakeholders, and recognition of their needs. This study examines recreationists' perceptions of the representation of recreation in land-use planning and their participation in land-use planning. As this study is among the first to examine this issue, British Columbia, Canada, serves as a test case in which a theoretical framework is developed and tested, in order that the broader implications of recreationists' perceived representation can be identified. The management of outdoor recreation would be complicated in its own right if planners were only concerned with outdoor recreation issues such as activity conflicts, visitor crowding, or infrastructure maintenance. However, outdoor recreation management does not occur in a vacuum: recreation in parks and protected areas must be balanced with conservation values. In landscapes outside of parks and protected areas, outdoor recreation management must be coordinated with other concerns, such as conservation and resource extraction. Ninety-five percent of British Columbia's landscape is Crown land, or managed for the public by the provincial government. On these Crown landscapes, all public values must be considered and balanced across the land base, not segregated into distinct areas. Traditionally the management focus of these lands has been resource extraction and development, particularly 3 forestry, although this has been changing in recent years as a result of a reduction in forestry's dominance of provincial G D P as well as an increased public awareness of environmental issues and concerns across the land base, not just parks. Land-use and natural resource decisions involve the distribution of scarce resources; Smith & McDonough (2001) note that the issues that frame these decisions "often involve limited resources, but multiple constituencies, creating a situation in which it is impossible for everyone to get what they desire" (p. 241). Land-use planning processes that incorporate, and are responsive to, the full range of social values are vital for the sustainable management of forested landscapes (Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, 2003). In BC, there have been many attempts to represent industrial, commercial, community, and recreational interests in forest land-use planning processes. While there have been examinations of provincial land-use planning processes (Duffy, Hallgren, Parker, Penrose, & Roseland, 1998; McAllister, 1998; Robinson, Robson, & Rollins, 2001; Penrose, Day & Roseland, 1998; Wilson, 1998), the outcomes of these processes for recreation opportunities, and their impacts on recreationists using the forest land base, are not well understood (Harshaw, Kozak & Sheppard, in press). For example, how well have past forest land-use planning exercises in BC represented the needs of the widening diversity of outdoor recreationists? How well represented do members of newer outdoor recreation activities feel? Are participants in newer recreation activities being excluded from the planning process, or do participants in more established activities feel they are being squeezed out by newer, more high-profile recreation activities? Moreover, who should represent these diverse groups? In an attempt to address these, and other questions, this study measures outdoor recreation stakeholder satisfaction with forest land-use planning outcomes as expressed by their perceptions of the representation of their needs in forest land-use planning processes. The management of publicly-owned forests in BC has traditionally focused on timber production and economic outputs, and land-use decision-making processes have arguably been dominated by commercial and political interests. However, there has been a shift in forest management priorities toward the management of multiple values and recognition of the important role of non-timber amenities, such as outdoor recreation values, in the sustainable forest management paradigm (Prins, Adamowicz & Phillips, 1990; Kimmins, 1991; Carrow, 1994; Robinson etal., 2001). This shift has been recognized by the forest industry as well (Weyerhauser, 1998). The consideration of outdoor recreation as an amenity value of forests, and its explicit incorporation into forest land-use management and planning, is important and in the public interest, as recreation appeals to a broad range of people and encompasses a range of activities and opportunities (Cordell, Teasley & Super, 1997; Manning, 1999; Federal-Provincial-Territorial Task Force on the Importance of Nature to Canadians, 1999). For many people, outdoor recreation provides one of the few opportunities to experience, interact with, and learn about forested landscapes; Bryan (2000) has characterized recreation activities as windows to the environment. Explicitly addressing recreation in land-use planning can help to alleviate planning uncertainties by reducing conflict on the 4 land-base, improving the quality of life of the public, and contributing to the social license of planning activities. The shift in forest management toward the management of multiple values has paralleled the recognition of post-materialist values (Inglehart, 1977), an increased awareness of environmental values and issues (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig & Jones, 2000), and a shift from forest management priorities being negotiated between governments and the forest industry, to forest management practices and specific programs being challenged by environmentalists (Carrow, 1999). This shift was motivated by an increase in public awareness of environmental and forestry issues (Carrow, 1999). Carrow has characterized the evolution of public involvement in forestry issues as one that progressed from an atmosphere of hostility and antagonism in the 1960s, to one that reflected greater degrees of local empowerment in the 1990s (Figure 1.1). This progression is similar to climbing the rungs of the Arnstein's (1969) ladder of citizen participation, as one moves from degree of non-participation, through degrees of tokenism, to achieve degrees of citizen power. Other authors have noted the increase in public participation in natural resource decision-making in other jurisdictions (e.g., Wondolleck, Manring & Crowfoot, 1996; Overdevest, 2000). Hostility/ ^ . Advisory Consensus _ Degrees of Local A * • • Discussion • „ . • n . . . . • ,_ . Antagonism Role Building Empowerment Meaningful participation by public increases • 1960s 1990s Figure 1.1. Progression of public involvement in forestry issues (from Carrow, 1999). The increase in public participation can be seen in the processes that have been used to plan and manage for outdoor recreation values in particular, and forested landscapes in general. For example, the Limits of Acceptable Change framework (LAC) applies a consensual approach to recreation management decision-making in wilderness areas; members of the public and stakeholders are involved in the identification of potential standards and monitoring, and work along side technical staff (Stankey, McCool & Stokes, 1990; Payne & Graham, 1993; Cole & Stankey, 1997). The LAC has been applied in many jurisdictions, including BC where the Ministry of Forests has employed it in the Swan Lake Wilderness Area to plan and manage for outdoor recreation opportunities in wilderness areas (Jackson & Leavers, 2000). Two other developments have increased opportunities for public participation more generally in BC forest management: regional land-use planning and the sustainable forest management certification movement. Regional land-use planning in B C is currently facilitated through Land and Resource Management Plans, which draw local stakeholders and government officials together in consensus-building processes that seek to develop and implement regional land use recommendations (Mascarenhas & Scarce, 2004). The recommendations allocate the land base into four categories: 5 protected areas, special management zones, general resource extraction, and enhanced resource extraction (Frame, Gunton & Day, 2004). Although there have been advances in the role that public participation has played in natural resource decision-making, there is evidence that some problems remain. Cashore, Hoberg, Howlett, Rayner & Wilson (2001) conclude that that despite the use of a shared-decision-making framework, a focus on consensus-building, and an increased level of participation from the public, land-use planning outcomes in BC have been influenced (and dominated) by economic and political considerations, and have ultimately been cabinet decisions. In a review of national studies of Canadian attitudes towards forest values and management, Robinson era/. (2001) conclude that societal values have not been represented in forest policy, perhaps due to inadequate representation of forest stakeholders. Economic and market concerns have influenced the manner in which public participation has been incorporated into commercial forest management: as forestry companies have sought certification that their management and operations are ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable in order to be seen as responsible corporate citizens and maintain market share, they have formalized the role of public participation primarily through the creation of public advisory committees (Canadian Standards Association, 2002). Although these committees make comments and recommendations about forest management plans and address some public concerns, they generally have no decision-making authority and tend to be influenced by the company involved (Parkins, 2002). 1.1.1 WHY IS THE REPRESENTATION OF RECREATION INTERESTS IMPORTANT? In this section, five reasons for explicitly representing outdoor recreation interests in forest land-use planning and for incorporating recreationists' participation in land-use planning are examined: moral, pragmatic, economic, legislative, and certification of sustainable forest management practices. Alone, these reasons suggest important considerations for forest managers and decision-makers; taken together, these reasons make a compelling case for explicitly including outdoor recreation values and effective recreationist participation (i.e. representation) in forest land-use planning. 1.1.1.1 Ethical Reasons for Explicitly Addressing Outdoor Recreation Interests in Forest Land-Use Planning Outdoor recreation provides and encourages many benefits to individual participants, society, the economy, and to the environment (Manning, 1999; Rollins & Robinson, 2002). Ensuring that forest management addresses and recognizes these benefits is a matter of equity1. As the majority of Canadians participate in outdoor recreation activities (see section 1.1.2 below), it is important that opportunities for, and access to, a diversity of recreation opportunities be available and accounted for in forest land-use planning outcomes. However, as Rollins & Robinson (2002) note, a consequence of the diversity of outdoor recreation activities that are available and the differing motivations for participating in 1 Smith & McDonough (2001) have differentiated equity from need: "Equity suggests everyone should get rewards in proportion to their efforts or costs. . . . need requires that people receive benefits according to their needs, either because they are deficient relative to others or because they have a need for greater resources than others" (p. 240). 6 these activities, is that there is not an average outdoor recreation participant that can be managed for: the management of outdoor recreation is management for diversity. In addition to being diverse, participation in outdoor recreation is dynamic, and changes in response to fluctuations in population and in activity choices as new activities emerge and the popularity of existing activities wanes. Providing a diversity of outdoor recreation opportunities and settings across the landscape permits land-use planning to be responsive to changes in demand for outdoor recreation experiences over time (Clark & Stankey, 1979). This future option for recreation opportunities provides for intergenerational equity, a cornerstone of most definitions of sustainability (e.g. Canadian Forest Service, 2004). The Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (2003) has stated that the distribution of recreation is an important aspect of social equity. Karlis (2004) has argued that in a social welfare state such as Canada, recreation can be considered a fundamental right and entitlement, as it is an important social need or requirement. Access to recreation is important for the social welfare of Canadians, and is an important avenue for the functioning of society. This argument finds support in the Sao Paulo Declaration (Fifth World Leisure and Recreation Association World Congress, 1998) and the World Leisure Charter for Leisure (World Leisure Board of Directors, 2000), which both detail the right of global citizens to leisure within the context of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations General Assembly, 1948). An ethical argument can also be made for the incorporation of meaningful public participation into forest land-use decision-making. Lawrence (2004) has noted that forests "affect the interests of everyone, but are often the property or responsibility of a few" (2004, p. 1126)! In Canada, people have a right to be meaningfully involved in decisions that affect them, especially when those activities are being carried out on publicly owned Crown lands (Forest Stewardship Council Canada Working Group, 2004). Adopting a principle of fairness would entail that decisions affecting the public or public resources should be inclusive and accessible, that the processes be open and transparent, and that provisions are made for the attainment of consensus not capitulation (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000). That the processes themselves be fair is a key aspect of meaningful public participation according to the procedural justice paradigm, which holds that perceived procedural fairness influence people's reactions to outcomes, and that outcomes that are produced by fair processes are deemed more acceptable by participants and stakeholders (Hunt & Haider, 2001; Smith & McDonough, 2001; Sheppard, 2003; Sheppard & Achiam, 2004). 1.1.1.2 Pragmatic Reasons for Explicitly Addressing Outdoor Recreation Interests in Forest Land-Use Planning Responsible forest stewardship and sustainability requires an understanding of the full spectrum of resource uses and activities across the landscape so that the impacts and contributions of these activities can be gauged and addressed. The pervasiveness of recreation participation in Canada and British Columbia and the potential for wide-ranging conflicts and impacts requires that outdoor recreation activities be explicitly addressed in land-use planning and management activities. The Importance of • tit Nature to Canadians Survey (the Nature Survey) documents Canadian participation in nature-related activities for 1996 (Federal-Provincial-Territorial Task Force on the Importance of Nature to Canadians, 1999). In 1996, 8 4 . 6 % of Canadians aged 15 and older (19.9 million) participated in one or more nature-related activities; 8 2 . 2 % of British Columbians participated in a nature-related activity during the same year. Almost half of the British Columbians that participated in nature-related activities engaged in outdoor recreation activities in natural areas; wildlife viewing and fishing each had participation from about one-fifth of British Columbian recreationists; participation in hunting had the lowest levels of participation among BC recreationists. Recreation participation by Canadians and British Columbians is varied in terms of motorized and non-motorized use and focus. British Columbians have higher levels of participation than the Canadian average for most activities with the exceptions of canoeing/kayaking/ sailing, cycling in natural areas, cross-country skiing/snowshoeing, and snowmobiling. The Nature Survey also assessed the likelihood that these rates of participation would continue in the future and concluded that participation in outdoor activities in natural areas (i.e. outdoor recreation) had the potential to increase by one and one half times, and that recreational fishing and hunting participation both had the potential to double (Federal-Provincial-Territorial Task Force on the Importance of Nature to Canadians, 1999). Coordinating the recreational activities of this large number of British Columbians with the other commercial and non-commercial forest-based activities on a finite landscape requires careful planning and management to avoid conflicts and minimize impacts. Recreation activities can have ecological impacts if not carefully managed, particularly given the magnitude of recreation participation that has been documented. The potential also exists for conflicts between recreation participants participating in different activities. Conflict between recreationists can occur when "visitors with differing views on how to use a recreation resource interact with each other" (Vaske, Carothers & Baird, 2000, p. 297). Recreation conflict can occur within activities (e.g. hiking for solitude and hiking with friends and family), between activities (e.g. cross country skiing and snowmobiling, or hiking and mountain biking), or between traditional activities and new activities (e.g. downhill skiing and snowboarding). The relationship between outdoor recreation and commercial industrial activities (e.g. forestry, oil and gas) is another pragmatic consideration that needs to be taken into account in land-use planning and management. This relationship is complex: conflicts arise between desired landscape conditions as outdoor recreation and commercial activities compete for the same forest resources; safety is also an issue for both groups. Yet, commercial industrial activities are responsible for providing much of the access to recreation opportunities via road networks, which can also be a source of conflict as different recreation activities require different degrees of access (Clark & Stankey, 1979). Balancing these different landscape uses in a public arena is a difficult task and one that requires careful planning. Public participation can also play a role in easing logistical tensions in land-use planning. Daniels & Walker (2001) note that there "may be no conflict setting more complex than environmental [natural 8 resource] policy" (p. 41). The nature of choices available to decision-makers has changed as increased demands on a finite land-base, and decisions made under increased public scrutiny, have increased the likelihood of conflict and expectations of resolution (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000). The success of land-use planning processes can be seen as a function of the intensity of mechanisms that are employed to involve the public, as more intensive mechanisms, such as collaborative processes are more likely to succeed than less intensive mechanisms, such as open houses or advertisements in newspapers, in the current political and democratic climate (Figure 1.2). Intensity of public participation process • Public hearings Advisory committees ^ Advisory committees ^ Negotiations & meetings not seeking consensus seeking consensus & mediations V J \ _ ) \ / v ) ; Liklihood of success increases — : • Figure 1.2. Intensity of public participation mechanism and likelihood of success (adapted from Beierle & Cayford, 2002). As the intensity of the participation process increases, so too does stakeholder ownership of planning decisions; a consequence of this is that decisions that solicit meaningful public dialogue are more likely to have accounted for stakeholder interests, and people are more likely to understand diversity of opinions surrounding a particular issue. Incorporating a broad range of publicly-held values enhances the fairness, or equity, of the decision-making process (Smith & McDonough, 2001). Results of the enhanced fairness are that (1) the effectiveness and accountability of resultant decisions is greater, and (2) that these decisions are more likely to reflect diverse public values and interests (Hunt & Haider, 2001). Additionally, interested and affected parties have knowledge and expertise - especially pertaining to local conditions - that can be lent to the planning process and help to improve planning outcome. Forest management planning that is adequately informed by the views of affected people is more likely to be politically acceptable and socially beneficial to affected communities (Forest Stewardship Council Canada Working Group, 2004, p. 50). In short, the effectiveness of decisions and the likelihood of successful planning outcomes increase in land-use planning processes that incorporate a high degree of public participation; this incorporation of representative recreation stakeholders in land-use decision-making increases the likelihood of effective recreation planning outcomes. 1.1.1.3 Economic Reasons for Explicitly Addressing Outdoor Recreation Interests in Forest Land-Use Planning There has been some difficulty accounting for the economic value of outdoor recreation as it is not a market-traded good or service; as a consequence, Canada's "natural wealth... is not fully reflected in commercial markets or adequately quantified in terms comparable with produced assets" (Federal-Provincial-Territorial Task Force on the Importance of Nature to Canadians, 2000, p. 3). In an effort to address this, the Nature Survey sought to quantify the economic value of Canadian participation in nature-related activities for 1996 (Federal-Provincial-Territorial Task Force on the Importance of Nature to Canadians, 2000). This study found that Canadians spent $11 billion in 1996 on all expenditures related to nature-related activities2; an additional $2 billion can be accounted for in unpaid enjoyment (e.g. option values). Direct recreation-related expenditures of British Columbians varied by activity: wildlife hunting had the highest average annual and daily expenditures ($50/day), while wildlife viewing had the lowest ($18/day); however, the greater number of wildlife viewing participants resulted in higher total expenditures than wildlife hunting. Indirect economic benefits and impacts of nature-related outdoor recreation activities also contributed to a number of national and provincial economic indicators including tax revenue, and to individual incomes and jobs. The indirect economic benefits and impacts also vary by recreation activity, suggesting that land-use planning that addresses a range of outdoor recreation opportunities may be able to better capture a diverse economic base. Taken together, these benefits may play an important role in the diversification of the BC economy, and thereby serve to increase the resilience of forest :dependent communities to forest sector fluctuations resulting from market changes, as well as other external drivers such as climate change (Davidson, Williamson & Parkins, 2003). The above economic contributions do not account for other benefits of nature-related activities that may have indirect economic effects such as faster stress recovery (Ulrich, Simons, Losito, Fiorito, Miles & Zelson, 1991), reduction of anxiety, and shorter recovery periods form surgeries (Ulrich, 1993). Clearly, outdoor recreation does make contributions to the Canadian and British Columbian economies. Land-use planning and management that explicitly addresses outdoor recreation and seeks land-use solutions that permit and encourage recreation opportunities can help in the realization of these economic benefits. Although the economic benefits of public participation may be more difficult to quantify, the main economic benefit of incorporating public participation into land-use decision-making is minimizing the uncertainty of planning outcomes. Resource management decisions that incorporate public participation are seen as more legitimate and the options identified more likely to be developed (Daniels & Walker, 2001). 1.1.1.4 Legislative & Policy Reasons for Explicitly Addressing Outdoor Recreation Interests in Forest Land-Use Planning The legislative framework that regulates forest management in BC is informed by agreements at national and international levels. The Working Group on Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests (i.e. the Montreal Process) was formed in 1994 to develop national-level sustainable forest management criteria and indicators; these were subsequently presented in 1995 as the Santiago Declaration. The development of these criteria and 2 This includes all costs associated with recreation participation: transportation, accommodation, food, equipment, supplies, licenses, entry fees, membership fees, and donations. 10 indicators was broadly seen as a step toward implementing Agenda 21 and the Statement of Forest Principles that were adopted by the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. These criteria and indicators, though not legally binding, recognize the role of forests in providing long-term well-being of local populations, national economies, and the biosphere. The provision of opportunities for outdoor recreation and opportunities for public participation in forest land-use decision-making were among the criteria and indicators that were developed (Montreal Process Working Group, 1999). The Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) has developed a set of criteria and indicators for the sustainable management of forests that are fully consistent with the Montreal Process. Outdoor recreation is addressed under the criterion for economic and social benefits and is recognized as a significant non-commercial benefit that is highly valued by Canadians. Although the criterion and supporting elements are couched in economic terms, and recreation is no longer an explicit indicator as it was in previous iterations, the C C F M does recognize that the long-term management of social benefits like recreation is required for sustainable forest management ( C C F M , 2003). In BC , the Ministry of Forests' (BCMoF) authority for recreation management on Crown lands is established under the Ministry of Forests Act, the Forest Act, and the Forest Practices Code Act, these acts establish recreation as one of three primary resource mandates in BC, and establish the degree of planning and management that are required (BCMoF, 2001). Additionally, recreation is one of the eleven forest values that are to be addressed in forest planning and management in the recent Forest and Range Practices Act (Forest and Range Practices Act, 2005). Forest licensees operating on Crown land in BC are also bound by these pieces of legislation. As recreation is one of the three principal management mandates of forest management, then it should share the same planning and management processes, and presumably be treated equally with the other two components. Just as timber supply review and annual allowable cut determinations involve the Provincial Government consulting and negotiating with the affected stakeholders (i.e. forest companies), so too should recreation stakeholders be consulted and included in negotiations. Similarly, the role of public participation in forestland decision-making has been recognized by the Montreal Process:" . . . an informed, aware and participatory public is indispensable to promoting the sustainable management of forests" (Montreal Process Working Group, 1999, p. 2). The current planning mechanism for sub-regional land-use planning in B C is Land and Resource Management Planning (LRMP), which explicitly requires public participation as a part of the planning and negotiation process (Integrated Resource Planning Committee, 1996). The majority of L R M P tables in the province had designated recreation representatives 11 1.1.1.5 Certification Reasons for Explicitly Addressing Outdoor Recreation Interests in Forest Land-Use Planning The sustainable forestry certification movement has emerged to be an important player in forest land-use planning in BC, in part due to its market influence (Cashore et al., 2001). Two certification schemes that have been particularly influential in BC are the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). The C S A certification standards were developed in collaboration with the C C F M and are explicitly linked to the C C F M criteria and indicators (the C C F M sustainable forest management criteria have been adopted virtually verbatim by CSA) ; as a result, the C S A framework is dynamic (as is CCFM's) and can incorporate new knowledge to reflect changing societal values. The F S C is an environmentally oriented organization that has adopted regionally developed standards for sustainable forest management and is arguably the most influential of certification mechanisms in BC (Cashore et al., 2001); however, it has not been widely adopted. The C S A incorporates outdoor recreation into its vision of sustainable forest management under its Timber and Non-Timber Benefits element. This element advocates for the management of a mix of both timber and non-timber benefits as a necessary component of sustainable forest management. Outdoor recreation is included as a non-timber benefit, and is framed as an economic amenity (Canadian Standards Association, 2002). Outdoor recreation is a consideration in three of the F S C principles for sustainable forest management and includes: access management and providing remote areas for recreation; explicitly addressing recreation in management objectives, strategies, and performance indicators and inventorying recreation resources; and the monitoring of impacts to recreation opportunities as both a cultural value and resource (Forest Stewardship Council Canada Working Group, 2004). Public participation is prominent in the C S A framework and is framed as a vital component: "CSA requires extensive public participation in development of its Standards" (Canadian Standards Association, 2002, p.1). This requirement is largely due to the high degree of public ownership of Canadian forests, and the belief that the public should have a role in, and indeed has a right to, determining planning outcomes on public land. The C S A framework seeks consensus in the decision-making process. The sixth C C F M criterion for sustainable forest management, Accepting Society's Responsibility for Sustainable Development, states that: "Society's responsibility for sustainable forest management requires that fair, equitable, and effective forest management decisions are made" (Canadian Standards Association, 2002, p. 21). In order to meet this criterion, adherents to the C S A sustainable forest management framework must demonstrate that their public participation process is designed and functioning to the satisfaction of planning participants. The fourth principle of the F S C framework, Community Relations and Workers' Rights, captures the role of public participation in decision-making. The intent of the fourth part of this principle acknowledges that people have a right to meaningful involvement in land-use decisions that affect them (particularly on Crown land), that the public has valuable knowledge that can inform and improve planning and planning outcomes, and that planning processes that have incorporated meaningful 12 public participation are more likely to be politically and socially acceptable (Forest Stewardship Council Canada Working Group, 2004). 1.2 TOWARD A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR RECREATIONIST INVOLVEMENT IN FOREST LAND-USE PLANNING. As outdoor recreationists are not the sole users of forest resources, their needs and interests must be coordinated with other stakeholders; however, as demonstrated in the preceding discussion, forest land-use planning is not a simple exercise. Although the arguments for incorporating outdoor recreation and public participation into the land-use decision-making processes in B C are established, the actual representation of outdoor recreation stakeholder needs and interests is dependent upon the process employed for planning and management, and the abilities of individual stakeholder representatives to convey the needs and interests of their constituency. Outdoor recreation participation in B C is fairly ubiquitous, given that 8 2 . 2 % of British Columbians participated in a nature-related activity in 1996 (see Section 1.1.1.2, above); the satisfaction of this stakeholder group ought therefore to be an important consideration among land-use managers and planners. However, outdoor recreation stakeholder satisfaction with forest land-use planning outcomes is not well understood. This research therefore represents a first step to understanding the perceptions of outdoor recreation visitors about the representation of their needs in land-use planning, and represents a new area of the application of recreation satisfaction. In order to assess recreationist satisfaction with land-use planning outcomes, the question, "Have outdoor recreation needs been represented in land-use planning?"frames the research described here; representation can occur through the active participation of an individual and/or their representation by others (i.e. representative democracy). Public participation in decision-making has been framed in terms of being an essential part of the democratic process. Democracy can be either participatory or representative (Overdevest, 2000). An objective of participatory democracy is the involvement of a broad cross section of the public. However, a number of barriers have been identified that constrain the ability of members of the public to engage in this form of democracy, including biographic availability, and limited capacities to fully understand the complexities of decisions and issues. Further, the land-use planning processes examined here (e.g. L R M P s , discussed in Chapter 2) are primarily representative processes not participatory processes; however, barriers to participation as representatives are relevant here. The second form of democracy, representative democracy, whereby citizen proxies represent the interests of their stakeholders or constituencies, can be drawn upon to overcome some of the constraints encountered in participatory democracy while allowing the concerns of the public to be heard. Following Manning's (1999) conceptual model of satisfaction, the resource setting for this study comprises forested landscapes in BC, the social settings are both front and backcountry areas, and the management setting is provincially managed landscapes, including provincial parks, Ministry of Forests 13 recreation sites, and other Crown land. Manning (1999) identifies five characteristics that influence subjective evaluations of recreation satisfaction (i.e. socioeconomic characteristics, cultural characteristics, degree of experience, attitudes and preferences, and norms); however, as there are not any standardized measures of satisfaction, this study focuses on two in an initial attempt to understand and frame recreationists' perceptions of having their needs represented in land-use planning: socio-economic characteristics and degree of experience. Socio-economic characteristics are examined, including aspects of social capital, the "features of social life - networks, norms, and trust - that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives" (Putnam, 1995, pp. 664-665), particularly expressive objectives, such as having one's needs represented in land-use planning. Recreation experience is examined within the context of recreation specialization, which has been associated with recreationists' management preferences. Within the recreation specialization framework, "outdoor recreation participants can be placed on a continuum from general interest and low involvement to specialized interest and high involvement" (Bryan, 2000, p. 18). This concept (discussed further in Chapter 2) is employed here to examine whether recreationists' degree of commitment to an activity extend to advocating for that activity in land-use planning. 1.2.1 CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO PERCEIVED REPRESENTATION IN LAND-USE PLANNING. The type of representation that can be measured through a recreation visitor survey, the principal means of eliciting information from recreation stakeholders and the main method employed in this study, is perceived representation, or the degree of representation that a person believes has occurred. This is different from actual representation in several ways. For example, a person might have unreasonable expectations about the degree or quality of representation that is possible: limitations in communication and planning process attributes may influence the effectiveness of a stakeholder representative or proxy to convey the needs and desires of their constituency. Also, a person might not be aware of what has gone on in a particular planning process and consequently not be in a position to accurately gauge • whether or not a representative was effective or not. With these primary considerations in mind, the degree that a person feels that their needs have been represented in land-use planning may also be influenced by their satisfaction with planning decisions or outcomes and possibly, by extension, their ability to pursue certain recreation activities and opportunities in the settings that they desire. The discrepancies between perceived and actual representation are addressed in this research through investigations of the perceptions of both recreation participants and recreation stakeholder land-use planning participants about whether recreationists' needs had been met in land-use planning, as well as an examination of planning processes themselves and planning outcomes in two areas of BC, the Sea-to-Sky Corridor and the Peace Foothills. 14 Although representation is framed in terms of satisfaction with planning processes and possibly outcomes, the concept of equity must also be considered. Equity, or fairness 3 , is assessed through subjective judgments about the appropriateness of decisions (Lauber & Knuth, 1999), and play a role in both the planning process {i.e. procedural fairness) and in planning outcomes (i.e. distributive fairness). Fairness, though a vague concept, is a major consideration that forms people's impressions of processes and outcomes. Fairness influences how people evaluate procedures; if the procedure is deemed to be fair, then it is more likely that resultant decisions will also be deemed to be fair (Lauber & Knuth, 1999). Definitions of procedural fairness and distributive fairness are discussed next. 1.2.1.1 Procedural Fairness Procedural fairness has been defined as the "adequacy of a procedure for producing an appropriate allocation of resources and obligations" (Lauber & Knuth, 1999, p. 20). Smith & McDonough (2001) summarize nine principles for assessing procedural fairness: (1) consistency of process over time; (2) suppression of bias; (3) use of accurate information; (4) flexibility of decisions;. (5) representativeness of the concerns of all recipients; (6) adherence to prevailing ethical and moral standards; (7) neutrality; (8) trust in the benevolent intentions of decision makers; and (9) status recognition. Lauber & Knuth (1999) identify a set of criteria that can be used to evaluate fairness. As these criteria are context dependent, a relevant subset are examined in this research: the influence that planning participants have over planning outcomes; opportunities for meaningful participation (i.e. process control); and a representation of all important viewpoints (Lauber & Knuth, 1999). Procedural fairness can be assessed in three ways. A review of relevant planning documents can provide some insight into the structure of the planning tables and intentions of the plan conveners. A survey of recreation stakeholder representatives that participate in planning activities can record the opinions of those that played roles in the formulation of the plan. A further measure can help inform the examination of procedural fairness: the socio-demographic characteristics of the recreation stakeholder representatives can be examined to gauge the degree to which the recreation representatives are in fact representative of their constituencies. .1.2.1.2 Distributive Fairness Distributive fairness is concerned with the equity of planning decision outcomes (Lauber & Knuth, 1999). Distributive fairness can be assessed in two main ways: review of actual planning documents and surveying recreationists for their opinions on outcomes. Three measures can be employed to examine distributive fairness: the accessibility of participation opportunities as a measure of the availability of participatory democracy; recreationists' impressions of the abilities of proxies that are typically part of planning processes to represent their outdoor recreation needs, as an outcome of representative democracy techniques; and the feelings of representation among recreation stakeholders - have they felt 3 Henderson (1997) distinguishes between equality and equity: "equality connotes sameness while equity results in fairness" (p. 19). 15 that their outdoor recreation needs have been represented, for example in terms of recreation use outcomes? 1.2.2 SUMMARY OF FRAMEWORK DESCRIBING RECREATIONIST INVOLVEMENT IN FOREST LAND-USE PLANNING. The main goal of this research is to examine recreationists' perceptions of the representation of recreation and active participation in forest land-use planning, in an effort to understand contributing factors to perceived representation and to identify possible solutions for enhancing the representation of recreation interests. Two earlier examinations of recreationists' perceived representation have helped to frame and refine a theoretical framework of perceived representation for recreation. Analysis of a pilot study for this research (described in Section 4) suggested that the probability of respondents reporting that their recreation needs were adequately met by the B C M o F was determined by six characteristics of recreationists, over and above actual recreation planning outcomes (Harshaw, unpublished data): (1) age; (2) whether or not the respondent used the services of a guide or rented equipment in the past year; (3) participation in trail hiking; (4) the number of outdoor recreation trips that have been taken; (5) use of B C M o F recreation sites; and (6) the season of outdoor recreation activity. Evidence suggested that the more actively engaged in outdoor recreation a person was, the more likely they were to report that their recreation needs were not being adequately represented by the B C M o F (Harshaw, unpublished data). In a refinement of the pilot study, and an initial analysis of data collected in the Sea-to-Sky Corridor for this research, the relationships between recreation characteristics and perceptions of representation in forest land-use planning were explored further. These preliminary results indicated that moderate levels of perceived representation were found for most recreation groups, although some recreationists seemed unclear about how well they were represented. The highest levels of perceived representation were found among mountain bikers and off-trail hikers. Mountaineers reported the lowest levels of perceived representation. An assessment of the contributions of four categories of variables (i.e. demographics, characteristics of recreation participation, involvement in recreation advocacy, and the location of recreation engagement) to perceived representation in land-use planning in the Sea-to-Sky Corridor suggested that five variables contribute most to explaining respondents' perceptions of representation in forest land-use planning: (1) household income; (2) membership in a recreation club; (3) the number of recreation activities engaged in; (4) annual participation rate; and (5) location of recreation pursuit (Harshaw, Kozak & Sheppard, in press). A refinement of the pilot study and the Sea-to-Sky Corridor frameworks and a further review of relevant literature suggested a conceptual model of factors influencing outdoor recreationist perceptions of representation and their participation in land-use planning (Figure 1.3). The theoretical support for the framework, development of the hypothetical relationships between the variables, and supporting hypotheses are fully developed and described in Chapter Two; however, a brief description follows. The theoretical framework proposed here consists of seven potential relationships (i.e. research propositions) that are informed by 27 hypotheses. The focus of the framework is the testing of the relationships between the two dependent variables, perceived representation and reported participation in land-use planning, and four categories of independent variables (socio-economic characteristics, outdoor recreation participation and experience, local residency, and the perceived representativeness of stakeholder proxies). Proposition 1 states that socio-economic and demographic variables, including biographical availability, are associated with a recreationist's participation in land-use planning. There is theoretical support for the propositions that socio-economic and demographic variables exert an influence over a person's participation in land-use planning (e.g. Wondolleck & Yaffee, 200), as well as a person's participation in, and experience with, outdoor recreation (e.g. Manning, 1999; not examined here). Socio-Economic Characteristics ' Participation in ^Land-Use Planning ($) ( ) Dependent variables ( ) Independent variables Theoretical relationship supported in the literature Proposed relationships PX Research propositions Perceived Represe^^Jn*^ - \ P. Perceived Representativeness of Proxies • Local Residency f >> Actual Representation Outdoor Recreation Participation & Experience Figure 1.3. Theoretical framework for the representation of outdoor recreation needs and interests in forest land-use planning Proposition 2 states that socio-economic and demographic variables (including aspects of social capital) are associated with a person's perceptions of whether their recreation needs have been represented in land-use planning. It is possible that the influence of socio-economic and demographic variables on a person's perceptions of representation in land-use planning relates to social capital; if a person possesses socio-economic characteristics that increase their degree of social capital (e.g. high 4 Although perceived representation is likely influenced by the degree of actual representation that occurred in a particular land-use planning process, the relationship between is not examined here. 17 occupational status, high income, advanced achievement in education, formal association with like-minded people in recreation clubs and organizations) they are more likely to have (and believe that) their recreation needs and interests represented in land-use planning, as they are more likely to wield political and social influence. Proposition 3 states that the degree of a person's actual involvement in land-use planning influences their perceived representation. There is theoretical and empirical support for the proposition that the degree of a person's actual involvement in natural resource management decision-making influences their perceptions of decision outcomes (Lauber & Knuth, 1999). The opportunities for interaction and communication afforded to a person in a decision-making process contribute to the formation of their perceptions of that process: one might expect, for example, that the more involvement a person has had, the more favourable their impressions are. Proposition 4 states that there is a relationship between a person's opinion of the abilities of the people or organizations that typically play roles in land-use planning and their perceptions of the representation of their recreation needs and interests in land-use planning processes. For example, one might expect recreationists to report that outdoor recreation clubs have a higher ability to represent recreation needs and interests than the resource industry does, and that therefore planning processes involving clubs would be seen as representing recreation well. Proposition 5 states that there is a relationship between outdoor recreations' characteristics and perceptions of the representation of recreation needs in land-use planning. Recreation experience is concerned with the frequency of participation, the number and types of activity engaged in, and the recreational settings that are preferred. Thus, a recreationist's degree of interaction and activity in a particular area may exert an influence over their perceived representation of recreation in land-use planning: can they achieve the experiences that they desire, and do they relate this to land-use planning? It is anticipated that the relationship between outdoor recreation participation and experience and perceived representation of recreation needs in land-use planning is a reciprocal one: if a person has a negative recreation experience, they may perceive that their recreation needs had not been represented in land-use planning. Proposition 6 states that there is a relationship between outdoor recreation characteristics and participation in land-use planning. Two mechanisms may be at work here. First, the more recreation experience a person has (e.g. the more frequently a person engaged in recreation in a particular area), the more aware they are of recreation issues and management interventions. Secondly, the recreation specialization framework (described in Chapter 2) suggests that the more central a recreation activity is to a person, the greater their commitment is to that activity. This research proposes that this increased commitment extends to advocacy for recreation through involvement in land-use planning processes. 18 Finally, Proposition 7 states that there is a relationship between the degree of localness a recreationist possesses and (1) their feelings about the representation of recreation and (2) their participation in land-use planning. Overall then, a number of factors may influence a recreationist's involvement in land-use planning; and recreationist satisfaction with land-use planning is seen as a function of how well the needs of recreation participants seem to have been articulated and represented in the planning process, as well as the degree to which quality opportunities for outdoor recreation appear to result from land-use management plans (i.e. planning outcomes). 1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES As this research is concerned with outdoor recreationists' involvement and satisfaction with land-use planning processes, it is anticipated that the outcomes of this research will have both practical and theoretical applications. With this in mind, this research was intended to satisfy five objectives. Objective One was to characterize the range and diversity of recreation interests and recreationists whose involvement should be sought. This requires the collection and analysis of background data on recreation use levels, patterns, and behaviours. Outdoor recreation inventory information in BC is limited and dated. Inventories of recreation features and opportunities on Crown land (British Columbia Ministry of Forests Forest Practices Branch, 1998a; 1998b) contain a wealth of information about recreation resources, but are not regularly updated and do not contain information about recreationist attitudes, characteristics, or behaviours. BC Parks collects information on park use that does contain information about visitor characteristics (e.g. British Columbia Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection, n.d.); however, this data is limited to parks and protected areas. This research begins to address this gap by providing information about the characteristics of BC recreationists on both Crown and park land in two disparate parts of the province. As noted above, as there is not an average outdoor recreation participant that can be managed for, it is anticipated that a better understanding of who recreationists are, is essential for (1) identifying whose interests need to be met; (2) examining the potential causes and contributions to involvement and representation; and (3) assisting planners and managers in decision-making and resource allocation. Objective Two was to obtain recreationists' opinions of the representativeness of land-use planning processes in BC : do recreationists believe that land-use planning decisions are being informed by the concerns or needs of the affected recreation stakeholders? Both provincially- and certification-based initiated land-use planning processes employ stakeholder representatives to inform and contribute to the decision-making process. Are they effective in achieving broad representation of the diversity of recreation stakeholders? The role of recreationist involvement in land-use planning can be assessed by examining recreationist participation in land-use planning and the actual representation of recreation 19 interests; this research focuses on recreationists' perceptions of representation (i.e. perceived representation). Objective Three of this research is to understand and clarify the underlying social and recreational mechanisms that contribute to recreationists' perceptions of representation in forest land-use planning, drawing on the data obtained for Objective One. Recreationists are an important and diverse constituency (both in terms of socio-demographic and recreation experience characteristics). Understanding how this diversity affects and helps to explain or predict recreationists' perceptions of planning process outcomes could serve to improve the participatory processes employed in forest land-use planning and management, and recreationist satisfaction. Objective Four of this research is to synthesize theoretical perspectives on public participation in land-use decision-making, on social capital, and on aspects of recreation specialization in a forest land-use planning and management context, and to test the proposed theoretical framework. By examining recreationist opinions on land-use planning in light of these theoretical frameworks, a more complete integration of recreation and public participation fields and concepts may be elucidated. Finally, Objective Five seeks to offer recommendations for forest land-use planning that will strengthen the ability of land-use managers and planners to address the needs and interests of outdoor recreationists. Linking the theoretical and empirical insights and developments of this research to practical outcomes should strengthen the management of outdoor recreation in BC . 1.4 BROAD STUDY APPROACH In an effort to meet the study objectives, examples of land-use planning processes in areas that had significant outdoor recreation interests and issues were sought for case studies. A pilot on-site survey in BG's Slocan Valley was conducted in March 2001 in order to capture data on winter recreation use in that area, recreationist preferences and satisfaction with management, and economic indicators of recreation use. The results indicated that 50 .6% of respondents felt that their recreation needs had been adequately represented by the BCMoF , suggesting that further research was warranted. The scope of the research was extended to include all land-use planning processes that affected forested landscapes in the study areas selected, not just those governed by the BCMoF , and the sample was recast as active recreation participants. To test the seven research propositions and address the five objectives of this research, two study areas (see Section 5) were selected for data gathering using two survey-based instruments. Active recreationists were sampled and asked about their recreation behaviours and perceptions of planning; socio-economic and demographic information was also collected. Related information was collected in a confirmatory survey of individuals that had acted as recreation stakeholder representatives in land-use 20 planning processes; this second sample was also asked about their experiences with planning and of their opinions about the recreationist sample's perceptions of planning outcomes. The results of the survey of recreation representatives are used to inform the interpretation of the survey of recreationists. The relationships of the propositions in the above theoretical framework (Figure 1.3) are examined using logistic regression modeling in order to identify the odds that a recreationist would report positive perceptions of their outdoor recreation needs being met in land-use planning. 1.5 S T U D Y A R E A D E S C R I P T I O N S Two study areas were selected for this research. The Sea to Sky Corridor is in south-western BC, and is characterized by relatively concentrated recreation opportunities, nearby urban communities and a relatively concentrated population, a mix of recreation activities that include risk-recreation opportunities (e.g. rock climbing, white water kayaking/canoeing, backcountry snow sports), and has an international profile as a tourist destination. The Peace Foothills is in north-eastern BC , and is characterized by dispersed recreation opportunities, rural communities and dispersed populations, and mechanized/ extractive recreation activities (e.g. snowmobiling, hunting). Five factors influenced the selection of these two geographically disparate study areas: (1) obtaining a broad representation of recreation activities and recreationists found in BC; (2) some comparability of recreation activities and settings between study areas; (3) diversity of urban and rural recreationists; (4) history of recent forest land-use planning that addressed recreation issues; and (5) pragmatic considerations, as funding for the Peace Foothills area was available on a related research project; although unfunded, the proximity of the Sea-to-Sky Corridor to Vancouver made research in this study area feasible. The analysis of two study areas sites permits the inclusion of a wide range of outdoor recreation activities that take place on Crown Land in BC, with richer insights on the governing relationships among variables to be examined, and a more robust basis for generalization of findings. 1.5.1 T H E SEA-TO -SKY CORRIDOR STUDY A R E A The Sea-to-Sky Corridor between Vancouver and Whistler, BC is an international tourism and recreation destination characterized by a concentration of outdoor recreation opportunities, proximity to both urban and rural communities, and a variety of outdoor recreation activities in a largely forested setting. By any measure, the area provides some of the most important outdoor recreation resources and experiences in BC. The Sea-to-Sky is an apt moniker for this regional planning area (and has also been adopted as a tourism brand for the area). The area rises from the shores of the Pacific Ocean to the heights of Mt. Garibaldi (2678 m) in the Coast Mountains. The Sea-to-Sky Corridor is accessed by Highway 99 (the Sea-to-Sky Highway) which parallels Howe Sound from Vancouver, BC's largest city, to Squamish, the self-proclaimed "outdoor recreation capital of Canada", continues north through the Squamish Valley to the resort community of Whistler and on to the town of Pemberton 146 km from Vancouver. The proximity of the Sea-to-Sky Corridor to Vancouver, with a large urban population of just less than 2 21 million, contributes to the high level of use that this area receives. This study is focused on the 75 km segment of Sea-to-Sky Corridor from Murrin Provincial Park (71 km north of Vancouver) to Pemberton (Figure 1.4). According to recent statistics, a total of 8 0 % of the tourist visits to the Sea-to-Sky Corridor was for general leisure purposes; of these visitors, one-quarter came to participate in specific outdoor recreation activities (BC Tourism, 1998). The area contains eleven provincial parks, ranging in size from the 24 ha Murrin Provincial Park to the 144,090 ha Garibaldi Provincial Park. Additionally, there are many recreation areas on public forestlands, outside of parklands that are primarily accessed by forest service roads (Holman, Nicol, Simpson, & Slaney, 2001). There are also a wide variety of commercial recreation and tourism facilities, notably the resort community of Whistler. Figure 1.4. Sea to Sky study area The diverse setting of the Sea-to-Sky Corridor provides a range of front- and back-country outdoor recreation opportunities for sightseers, hikers, rock climbers, skiers, snowboarders, snowmobilers, mountain bikers, and white water kayakers. Tourism is the most important regional economic contributor in the Sea-to-Sky Corridor, attracting visitors from across North America, Asia , and Europe. Commercial snow sports and mountain biking in Whistler are a major attraction in the area; however, this study focuses primarily on recreation opportunities on public land. Recreation use in parks and on other public lands, both from local residents and tourists, is expected to continue to increase (Holman era/., 2001). 22 Visitor statistics for the eleven provincial parks in the Sea-to-Sky Corridor indicate that 2,051,844 visitors participated in day use activities and 123,334 visitors participated in camping activities in 1999 (British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, n.d.). Visitor statistics for non-parkland recreation use in the area are not available. One factor that will undoubtedly increase both visitor use in, and attention to, this already popular outdoor recreation destination is the 2010 Winter Olympics being held in Vancouver and Whistler. A study of the economic impact of the Olympics suggests that the number of international visitors to the area, as a result of the games alone, would range from 1.05 million for the period 2008-2014, to 4.29 million for the period 2002-2020, compared with Tourism BC's estimate of 10.0 million international visits for the entire Province in 2000 (InterVISTAS Consulting Inc., 2002). In order to accommodate the increased visitor traffic, the Sea-to-Sky Highway is being upgraded and widened in an effort to make the route both safer and faster. The increase in access and visitors will likely alter the current character of the area and the recreation opportunities found in it, as existing front-country recreation facilities may not have the capacities to absorb the increased number of visitors, given existing budgetary commitments to provincial parks and forest recreation sites in the Province. Although a public referendum of Vancouver residents held on February 22, 2003, revealed that 6 4 % of respondents supported the Vancouver-Whistler Olympic bid (City of Vancouver, 2003), some of the forest land-use decisions regarding Olympic venues are being made without a robust understanding of current visitors' behaviours, preferences, and needs, as evidenced by the lack of current recreation use statistics. For example, the proposed Whistler Nordic Centre in the Callaghan Valley is an area already experiencing user conflict between snowmobilers and skiers. The multitude of economic, ecological, and social values in the area has provided challenges for land-use planners and managers. There are many examples of forest land-use planning processes that have sought solutions for resource management in the Sea-to-Sky Corridor at a variety of spatial scales, from both rational and transactive planning schools. Rational planning has been characterized as an "expert approach", whereby professional planners identify goals and objectives to be met, as well as the means to achieve them. In contrast, transactive planning is a participatory approach that involves stakeholders at stages throughout the planning process (Payne & Graham, 1993). An example of a rational planning process implemented in the Sea-to-Sky Corridor is the Whistler Local Resource Use Plan (LRUP) that was initiated in 1987. L R U P s are strategic planning processes that are carried out at the local level to address complex, or competing, resource issues related to specific integrated management objectives in parts of the Provincial forest; these plans are approved by the district or regional forest managers (Haddock, 1999). Examples of transactive planning processes that have been completed in the Sea-to-Sky Corridor include the development of a rock climbing strategy for three area parks that involved the local rock climbing community (BC Parks Garibaldi/Sunshine Coast District, & Volunteer Group of Climbers, n.d.), and the recent initiation of the Sea-to-Sky L R M P . An L R M P is a planning tool employed in B C that represents a consensus-based, multiple-stakeholder (including representatives from industry, 23 government and the public) land-use approach to planning applied at sub-regional scales ranging from one to six million hectares (Duffy et al., 1998; Haddock, 1999). The Sea-to-Sky L R M P was initiated in January 2001 and concluded October 2004. Two public outdoor recreation representatives were selected for the process, one represented non-motorized activities and the other represented motorized activities; other stakeholders with representatives in the process include energy, environment/conservation, forestry, labour, tourism (back- and front-country), fish and wildlife, subsurface resources and aggregates, local elected officials, and agriculture (BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, n.d.). The tension between competing forest land-uses in the Sea-to-Sky Corridor (particularly between timber and outdoor recreation values) has been highlighted by the number of forest land-use management plans developed to address a variety of forest resource issues and concerns. As recreation use in the area is expected to increase, along with recreation-based tourism, there is little doubt that the particular concerns and expectations of an increasing variety of outdoor recreation participants will become important considerations in forest land-use planning. Clearly, there is a need to gauge effectiveness of forest land-use planning in the Sea-to-Sky Corridor in representing outdoor recreation values. 1.5.2 T H E P E A C E FOOTHILLS STUDY A R E A The Peace Foothills study area is contained within the Dawson Creek Forest District, a 2.9 million ha administrative unit that bordered to the north by the Peace River, to the east by the Alberta border, and to the south and west by the continental divide of the Rocky Mountains (Figure 1.5). This predominantly forested area contains numerous lakes and rivers and is located in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. The setting of the District is predominantly rural, with the communities of Dawson Creek, Chetwynd, Hudson's Hope, and Tumbler Ridge serving as population centers; the city of Fort St. John, though outside of the District, is another community that enjoys some of the recreation resources of the area. The population of the District is 30,000, one third of which are rural residents. Tourism is responsible for 7 % of the District's employment; the resource sector, particularly forestry, mining, agriculture, and oil and gas, are responsible for 4 7 % of the District's employment. Although motorized recreation use in the area is high, there are still accessible wilderness settings that support primitive recreation opportunities; the area's proximity to the Muskwa- Kechika Management Area, a 6.4 million hectare wilderness area, is an example. This mix of resource uses provides for a challenging land-use planning and management environment. Outdoor recreation activities in the area include hiking, hunting, trail riding, wildlife viewing, fishing, canoeing, jet boating, cross-country skiing, ATVing, snowmobiling. Wilderness recreation activity participation rates in remote areas of the District are increasing and nature- and recreation-based tourism are also expected to increase. The Alaskan Highway is a major tourism draw for the area, attracting visitors from the southern United States as well as Alberta, Saskatchewan and southern BC . Outdoor recreation is the secondary purpose of tourism visitation to area and the participation rate of visitors to area in outdoor recreation area highest of all travel regions in province. The nine Provincial Parks in the 24 Dawson Creek Forest District, ranging in size from the 5 ha Sudeten Provincial Park to the 62, 896 ha Monkman Provincial Park, had 9,578 overnight camping visits in 2000 (a 2 4 . 6 % increase from 1985) and 39,604 day visits to parks in area in 2000 (a 158.4% increase from 1985). This study area also contains 18 B C M o F recreation sites, and 11 trails. The BC Protected Areas Strategy set a target of 6 .75% of the land base to be in parks and protected areas, a substantial increase from the 1.6% of the land base that was existing parkland, and this informed the discussions of the Dawson Creek L R M P . This L R M P was initiated in the spring of 1992 to address some of these challenges, and was implemented in 1999. This L R M P approved 16 more parks and protected areas. The protection of recreation resources was an explicit goal of the plan, and included an access management strategy in place to maintain recreation access throughout the area (British Columbia Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks, 1999; Lions Gate Consulting Inc., Geoscape Environmental Planners, Sunderman and Associates, JK Solutions Ltd., & S L K Consulting, 2001). Figure 1.5. Peace Foothills study area Another planning process that will have an influence on recreation and land-use in the Dawson Creek Forest District is the C S A certification effort of Canadian Forest Products Ltd. (Canfor). Canfor manages Tree Farm License (TFL) 48. In addition to forestry operations, the TFL supports oil and gas exploration, 25 trapping, hunting, motorized recreation and an evolving eco-tourism industry; the area also has significant value to several First Nations. Conflicts between public groups interested in access to remote sites and those interested in wilderness are common. As part of the C S A certification process, Canfor has established a Public Advisory Committee, in which stakeholder representatives are consulted about forestry operations within the TFL. 1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THESIS The following chapters build on the arguments and propositions made here. Chapter Two reviews literature from four fields to provide theoretical context and methodological frameworks for this research: (1) perspectives of public participation (i.e. democratic traditions, public participation, challenges of public participation, and public participation benefits); (2) land-use planning in British Columbia (i.e. the Commission on Resources and the Environment, and Land and Resource Management Plans and forestry certification); (3) social capital and social networks within the context of the study of leisure; and (4) recreation experience characteristics (i.e. recreation specialization, the influence of other recreationist characteristics). Based on a synthesis of the literature, Chapter Two also presents in detail the seven research propositions and attendant hypotheses. The third chapter details the design of the survey instruments and the sampling methods for both the survey of recreationists and the survey of recreation representatives. Chapter Four presents results and discussions of analyses of recreation participant characteristics; descriptive tests of the propositions are made to further inform the selection of variables to be included in the logistic regression models of representation odds. In Chapter Five the results of the survey of the actual experiences of recreation representatives in land-use planning processes are presented and discussed. Chapter Six further examines the relationships between recreation participant characteristics and perceived representation of outdoor recreation in land-use planning, through the construction and analysis of a series of logistic regression models of perceived representation. Finally, in the seventh chapter, the cumulative results of this study are synthesized and theoretical and practical implications are presented in the form of a refined model and recommendations. The seven research propositions that are established in Chapter Two also serve to provide the broad structure of the following six chapters. 26 Chapter 2 Literature review and theoretical development 2.1. INTRODUCTION The shift in the focus of forest management from timber to a broader range of values (McFarlane & Boxall, 2000) makes the representation of recreation interests, needs and desires an important consideration in forest land-use decision-making. This chapter reviews overall concepts and challenges of public participation to frame the representation of recreation in land-use planning, and reviews current planning frameworks in BC. Social capital and social network theory are examined to identify social influences and barriers that are relevant to recreation needs and stakeholders. Recreationists' characteristics, especially recreation experience (i.e. skill level, history) in the context of recreation specialization, are reviewed in light of their potential contributions to explaining how recreationists differ in terms of their perceptions of the representation of outdoor recreation in land-use planning and their participation in land-use planning. 2.2. PERSPECTIVES ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The need for incorporation of public participation in land-use planning in general, and in recreation planning in particular, has increasingly been recognized since the 1970's (Propst & Bentley, 2000). The role of public participation in regional land-use planning initiatives in B C became formalized, first through the Commission on Resources and the Environment process (CORE) and then through Land and Resource Plans (LRMPs). The sustainable forest management certification movement also provides venues for discussions of the distribution and management of forest resources and amenities through the public advisory groups that represent public (and recreational) interests. Despite these opportunities for participation, the issues, concerns, and opinions of recreation participants are not necessarily being heard at forest land-use planning tables. This section reviews conceptions and challenges of public participation in an effort to (1) identify those characteristics of planning processes that serve to benefit or constrain the interests and needs of outdoor recreationists, (2) define what constitutes good participation and good representation, and (3) examine what may influence good participation and good representation. 27 2.2.1 DEMOCRATIC TRADITIONS Fundamental to democratic governance is the inclusion of citizens that will be affected by decisions in the decision-making process - it is a matter of fairness (Lauber & Knuth, 1999; Hunt & Haider, 2001). In the context of decision-making, fairness can be conceived of as judgments about the legitimacy and relevance of a decision. People's perception of fairness influences how they evaluate the procedures that govern the decision-making process (i.e. procedural fairness), such that if the procedures are deemed to be fair, then it is more likely that resultant decisions (i.e. outcomes) will also be deemed to be fair (i.e. distributive fairness) (Lauber & Knuth, 1999). This conception of fairness requires that decision-making processes be open and transparent (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000). 2.2.1.1 Participatory Democracy Although there are many conceptions of democracy, the democratic tradition can be conceived of as a continuum from participatory democracy to representative democracy wherein the degree of actual citizen participation and commitment varies (Hemingway, 1999). Participatory democracy requires the direct involvement of citizens in decision-making and assumes that citizens have the both the capacity (i.e. knowledge, skill) and desire to engage in meaningful discussions about the issue at hand. Among the objectives of participatory democracy are: to involve a broad cross section of the public; to rebuild sense of community; and to restore sense of self-reliance and self-worth to communities and their members (Overdevest, 2000). As Hemingway (1999) has noted, "[pjarticipatory democracy is in this sense a communicative process, and the citizen, rather than groups, is assumed to be the basic unit in it" (p. 153). The value of having these communicative processes has been examined by Delli Carpini, Cook & Jacobs (2004), who argue that even the act of public deliberation, a formal (e.g. a town hall meeting) or informal (e.g. a discussion among friends) form of public participation that permits the development and expression of ideas, can lead to desirable outcomes such as increased social capital, since people that engage in public deliberation are more likely to become involved in other forms of civic engagement. In addition to being characterized as being communicative, participatory democracy is a cooperative process. 2.2.1.2 Representative Democracy Representative democracy on the other hand employs citizen proxies to represent and advocate for the interests of their constituencies, or stakeholders, with "the basic acts entailed being the calculation of interest and the manipulative persuasion of others" (Hemingway, 1999, p. 152). Overdevest (2000) suggests that representative democracy rose out of a need for proxy representatives as citizens' time is typically constrained (e.g. biographical availability1), and that members of the public generally have limited capacities to understand the complexities of decisions; other possible constraints on people's availability 1 In McAdam's (1986) examination of high and low risk social activism, he notes that biographical availability, or "the absence of personal constraints that may increase the costs and risks of movement participation, such as full-time employment, marriage, and family responsibilities" (p. 70), plays a role in the recruitment of members to social movements. This concept has also been termed biographical constraints (McAdam, 1992). Characteristics that may act as biographical constraints include post-secondary education enrollment, home region, and race. 28 include their geographical distance from the locus of planning, and the financial costs associated with participation. For example, in forest land-use planning, people may find it difficult to choose among alternative management scenarios and relate potential outcomes to personal preferences. As demands on citizenship are not great in representative democracies, it may be labeled "weak citizenship", while participatory can be labeled "strong citizenship" (Hemingway, 1999). A comparison of typical attributes of representative and participatory democracies, as presented by'H'emingway (1999), is presented in Table 2.1. Table 2.1. Characteristics of participatory and representative conceptions of democracy. ^ . . . .. Form of Democracy Characteristics — _ .. . — = 7 . . . — Participatory Representative Citizen involvement More Less Focus Individual Group Style Communicative Adversarial Orientation Process Outcome Model Developmental Market Demand on leisure time Greater Less Adapted from Hemingway (1999, p. 152). A significant contribution that leisure makes to democratic citizenship and civic society has been fostering opportunities for the creation and transfer of social capital (i.e. norms, social trust; social capital, and its relationship to leisure and recreation, is discussed below in Section 4). Hemingway (1999) has argued that "[d]emocratic social capital grows out of leisure activity that fosters democratic norms like autonomy, trust, cooperation, and open communication", and that "democratic social capital cannot emerge from activities administered in non-democratic fashions" (p. 162). Regardless of which democratic tradition frames a decision-making process, it is important that meaningful opportunities for public involvement be explicitly incorporated into that process. Hunt & Haider (2001) conclude that "[djespite the different rationales for increased public involvement in decision making, the resonate echo is that people must be involved in these processes" (p. 874). 2.2.2 APPROACHES TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Public participation in resource and land-use decision-making has been defined as "any of several 'mechanisms' intentionally instituted to involve the lay public or their representatives in administrative decision-making" (Beierle & Cayford, 2002, p. 6). Many authors have discussed the importance of incorporating opportunities for meaningful input into land-use planning processes (e.g. Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000; Daniels & Walker, 2001; Hunt & Haider, 2001; Beierle & Cayford, 2002; Halseth & Booth, 2003), and divesting technical details from policy-making: "Rather than seeing policy decisions as fundamentally technical with some need for public input, we should see many more decisions as fundamentally public with the need for some technical input" (Beierle & Cayford, 2002, p. 75). Although some authors contend that "[i]t is now widely accepted that members of the public should be involved in 29 environmental decision-making" (Tuler & Webler, 1999, p. 437), there is less consensus about what public involvement entails; for example, what degree of involvement ought to be accorded to individual members of the public? Public participation constitutes a redistribution of power whereby the general public is accorded opportunities to engage in decision-making through the sharing of information, knowledge, and ideas to effect change. For Arnstein (1969), public participation is an inclusive mechanism in decision-making that empowers citizens that typically do not have power: "it is the means by which they can induce significant social reform which enables them to share in the benefits of the affluent society" (p. 216). An important distinction of public participation in natural resources (and forest land-use) decision-making is that the decisions being made are about the allocation of scarce resources amongst a host of differing stakeholders, including commercial (e.g. timber, oil and gas, and minerals) and public (e.g. outdoor recreation, aesthetics, access) interests. The key to effective public participation in decision-making is the degree of power (i.e. influence) that members of the public have (Buchy & Hoverman, 2000); this has also been noted by Arnstein (1969), wherein "participation without redistribution of power is an empty and frustrating process for the powerless" (p. 216). One typology of the degree of influence associated with public participation is presented in Figure 2.1. Citizen Control Delegated Power Partnership Placation Consultation Informing Therapy Manipulation Degrees of citizen power Degrees of tokenism } Non-participation Figure 2.1. A ladder of participation (Arnstein, 1969) In this typology, Arnstein (1969) distinguishes between eight different degrees of participation and influence. The bottom five rungs of this ladder of participation represent mechanisms that do not reflect meaningful opportunities for public participation; these mechanisms allow citizens to offer advice and be heard (at best), or provide opportunities for decisions to be explained and advocated for. These bottom-rung mechanisms that lack decision-making authority are the most frequently used forms of participation opportunities (Propst & Bentley, 2000). The top three rungs of the ladder represent opportunities for the 30 public to influence decisions in which they have a stake: these are meaningful opportunities for public participation. The benefits of meaningful public participation do come with responsibilities for participants such as knowledge acquisition about the issue(s) at hand, the ability to communicate one's ideas and opinions and to effectively negotiate one's interests (Arnstein, 1969; Shindler'& Neburka, 1997; Overdevest, 2000). These responsibilities borne by public participants contribute to the legitimacy of a planning process. In an examination of resource planning in the United States, Daniels & Walker (2001) conclude that public policy is threatened by poorly defined direction and a lack of effectiveness, and may be characterized as lacking social legitimacy. These authors argue that effective policy "[is] an adaptive process; uses the most appropriate science and technology; is implementable; [and] has low transition costs" (p. 2). To achieve social legitimacy, effective resource planning policy should be rational and solutions technically sound, and include affected publics through collaborative mechanisms. Opportunities for public participation in decision-making have had an increasing role in land-use policy making over the past thirty years and may be seen as climbing the rungs of Arnstein's (1969) ladder. In their review of 239 case studies of public participation in American environmental decision-making, Beierle & Cayford (2002) describe the transition of environmental decision-making from that of the managerial model, to decision making processes that recognized pluralism, to an atmosphere that recognized popular democratic theory. The managerial model is a largely utilitarian approach to resource management that relied upon experts to identify planning goals and objectives and make decisions that would provide social welfare maximization; this approach to planning has also been termed "rational planning" (Payne & .Graham, 1993). Managerialism gave way to concept of pluralism, wherein it was acknowledged that the public good was relative to who the affected public was. Under this approach to resource planning, government administrators became the arbiters of the interests of the different constituencies that had stakes in the decisions. In the final stage of this transition, resource decision-making has adopted popular democratic theory, which "stresses the importance of the act of participation, not only in influencing decisions but also in strengthening civic capacity and social capital" (Beierle & Cayford, 2002, p. 4). This inclusion and involvement of members of the public with an interest in planning outcomes (i.e. stakeholders) throughout the planning process, including the identification and framing of planning goals and objectives, has been termed transactive planning (Payne & Graham, 1993). Although the transition to decision-making processes described by Beierle & Cayford (2002) is drawn from the American experience with environmental decision-making, it is strikingly similar to BC's experience with the rise of public participation in land-use planning and social forestry (Kimmins, 1991; Weyerhauser, 1998; Carrow, 1999; Robinson, Robson & Rollins, 2001; Sheppard & Achiam, 2004). 31 Beierle & Cayford (2002) argue that planning success is a function of intensity of the mechanisms employed for involving public in decision-making, and not the context of the planning. In their examination of public participation in environmental decision-making, the authors conclude that more intensive participatory mechanisms are more likely to succeed (see Table 2.2). Table 2.2. Participatory mechanisms. Mechanism Selection of Participants Feature Type of Participant Type of Output Seek Consensus? Public meetings and hearings Advisory committees not seeking consensus Advisory committees seeking consensus a> Negotiations •E and mediations Usually open access; group size,rangesf Small group of participants selected based on characteristics Small group of participants selected based^on Small group of participants selected based on characteristics or specific interests citizens Average citizens, interest group representatives Average citizens, interest group reMefintaitives Interest group representatives Information sharing Recommendations to agency Recommendations to iKiency No No Yes Agreements to parties Yes Source: Beierle & Cayford (2002, p. 45) However, as the intensity of participation increases, the process moves away from the tradition of participatory democracy toward that of representative democracy. Mechanisms, such as open houses often involve large numbers of people, but may be perceived as hostile settings by some members of the public; open houses can devolve into opportunities for announcing and defending decisions that have already been made, and may not provide meaningful opportunities for participation. On the other hand, more intensive processes, such as negotiations, engage fewer people and are less likely to be reflective of socioeconomic characteristics and are more limited in outreach to constituencies and communities (Buchy & Hoverman, 2000; Overdevest, 2000; Beierle & Cayford, 2002). Beierle & Cayford (2002) note that more intensive processes "demonstrate a strong tendency to reach consensus by leaving out 32 participants or ignoring issues" (p. 48), and that "as processes intensify, the range and representativeness of voices heard - as well as the social benefits of education, conflict resolution, and trust formation - tend to narrow down to the relatively small group of active participants" (p. 48). These authors also contend that more intensive processes can be more successful at overcoming preexisting conflict amongst constituencies. The degree of public participation that a decision-making process will incorporate should be clearly defined at the beginning of the process so as to avoid confusion and elevated expectations, and to provide a criterion for measuring the success of the process (Shindler & Neburka, 1997; Buchy & Hoverman, 2000). Further, the participation of public constituencies should not be limited to the decision-making process, but should extend to implementing the plan and evaluating planning outcomes (Shindler & Neburka, 1997; Beierle & Cayford, 2002; Delli Carpini, Cook & Jacobs, 2004). It is important to recognize that the situations and issues being confronted by decision-making processes that incorporate public participation, as well as the communities that are affected by the decisions, are unique and require specific approaches to the problem at hand. No single set of procedures can be applied universally to public participation processes; local adaptations will be necessary (Shindler & Neburka, 1997; Tuler & Webler, 1999). There are three common approaches to meaningful public participation: shared decision-making, consensus building, and interest-based negotiation. Shared decision-making is a type of decision-making that is based on consensus building, interest-based negotiation, and collaboration. Within this context, consensus building aims for win-win solutions and seeks to reduce power imbalances; consensus building has been characterized as being "free from the tyranny of the majority" (Williams, Penrose & Hawkes, 1998, p. 864). Consensus building is dependent upon the willingness of all parties to pursue consensus and agree to outcomes, agreement that consensus is the most appropriate means of reaching agreement in a given situation, as well as the political will of government to embrace the consensus process and outcomes. Interest-based negotiation focuses on stakeholder interests rather than positions. In this sense, interests are fundamental goals that are based on the hopes, desires, concerns, and fears, whereas positions are desired end-states. Interest-based negotiation is premised on principled negotiation, and attempts to "separate the people from the problem; focus on interests, not positions; invent options for mutual gain; and insist on using explicit objective criteria" (Williams era/., 1998a, p. 865). Finally, collaboration "occurs when stakeholders embroiled in conflict agree to explore their differences and seek solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible" (Williams, Penrose & Hawkes, 1998a, p. 865). By encouraging planning participants to accommodate other stakeholder interests without necessarily compromising their own, shared decision-making outcomes can result in greater public ownership of decisions. However, there are limitations to collaborative planning methods including, ideological and value differences among stakeholders, institutional resistance to change, a lack 33 of trust among participants and between participants and government, and imbalances in power among stakeholders. Time is also an important factor when considering collaborative decision-making processes - due to the limitations already mentioned the decision-making process can take longer than traditional processes (Day, Gunton & Frame, 2003). It should be noted that the three approaches to meaningful public participation need not be independent and can overlap; thus, for example, it is possible for collaboration to occur with different levels of consensus. The inclusion of a broad array of stakeholders and ideas in planning processes that have high degrees of public participation permits the incorporation of experience and knowledge that can serve to produce innovative planning outcomes that are more reflective of community interests (Day, Gunton & Fame, 2003; Finnigan, Gunton & Williams, 2003; Frame, Gunton & Day, 2004). Further, the sharing of knowledge through these collaborative processes can help to increase the knowledge and social capital of participants (Beierle & Cayford, 2002; Finnigan era/., 2003). Among the benefits advocated for the incorporation of public participation into natural resource decision-making are: (1) decisions that have been reached through public participation are more publicly acceptable and more likely to be implemented; (2) public participation improves the relationship between management agencies and the public; and (3) public participation in decision-making can reduce resource management conflicts (Lauber & Knuth, 1999; Buchy & Hoverman, 2000). Although there are pragmatic reasons for adopting public participation mechanisms into land-use decision-making, such as increased ownership of outcomes by participants (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000), Beierle & Cayford (2002) identify five goals of public participation that should also serve to produce more effective planning solutions: "Incorporating public values into decisions, ...Improving the substantive quality of decisions, . . .Resolving conflict among competing interests, ...Building trust in institutions, ...[and] Educating and informing the public" (p. 6). Wondolleck, Manring & Crowfoot (1996) note that a broader representation of interests at planning tables can lead to a broader set of potential solutions being identified. 2.2.3 CHALLENGES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION As noted in the previous chapter, land-use planning is a complex undertaking. This complexity stems from bringing together multiple constituencies, each with their own deeply held values and world-views, to discuss and resolve multiple issues, which are governed by multiple policies, that require a certain degree of scientific and technical knowledge in settings that are often plagued by scientific and technical uncertainty (Daniels & Walker, 2001). Wondolleck & Yaffee (2000) have characterized resource management as being predominantly utilitarian, brokered by technocrats, who typically view under-use as wasteful. It must be recognized that current land-use planning processes are an improvement over past processes, especially in terms of the degree to which information is made available, and the degree of opportunity that the public has to become involved (Wondolleck et al., 1996). Yet challenges remain. 34 Overdevest (2000) examined whether the decision-making process employed for public involvement in the Nantahala National Forest in North Carolina was representative of public values and found that representation is more likely to be achieved if structural barriers to participation in the process can be overcome. For example, people with lower incomes or little discretionary time are less able, and less likely, to become involved in land-use planning exercises. One challenge to public participation, alluded to above, is that participatory approaches are often less effective than representative approaches. That is, effective participation of the public requires knowledge of issues, skills (e.g. negotiation), and resources (e.g. time) that may be limiting factors in the participation of those citizens that would otherwise be inclined to participate (Wondolleck et al, 1996; Overdevest, 2000; Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000). Thus meaningful public participation becomes the participation of public representatives - which in itself may not be a bad thing, provided that these representatives are advocating for the needs and interests of their constituencies and are in fact representative of their constituencies. Daniels & Walker (2001) introduce what they term the Fundamental Paradox of welfare maximization and interest group mediation: the juxtaposition "between technical competence and open process.. . achieving one value may compromise our ability to achieve the other" (p. 4). The issue of providing opportunities for members of the public who may lack the technical skill necessary to understand and contribute to discussions has been discussed by other authors (e.g. Wondolleck era/., 1996; Mascarenhas & Scarce, 2004). Other challenges to the effectiveness of public participation include imbalances in power and poorly defined accountability mechanisms of the process, which can exclude the public interest (Frame era/., 2004). Adding to these difficulties are uncertainties amongst participants about the process (both in terms of what the planning goals and objectives are as well as their role as participants) and the intentions of other stakeholders, and different assessments of acceptable outcomes or actions based on constituency needs and values (Daniels & Walker, 2001). Public representatives in planning processes have been referred to as members of civil society, or those people representing constituencies other than those of government or industry: "These stakeholders are not professional natural resource managers, nor do they have any direct pecuniary interest in resource management decisions" (Finnigan era/., 2003, p. 15). Civil society stakeholders typically have fewer resources than government and industry, including skills, funding, time, experience (Buchy & Hoverman, 2000; Daniels & Walker, 2001); these stakeholder groups also tend to have weaker organizational structures. These deficiencies can lead to what has been termed the "two table" problem, wherein civil society stakeholders do not have the time or resources to participate at both the official planning table and their own constituency table, which can result in a compromise of stakeholder accountability to their constituencies. Consequently, two barriers for civil society stakeholders are commitments of time and financial resources that are required for effective participation, and the power imbalances that exist among stakeholders (Finnigan era/., 2003). 35 Halseth & Booth (2003) employed a household survey to assess the BC public's familiarity with resource planning processes. Among their findings were that less than one-quarter of respondents had attended a local planning meeting, and that the most common form of communication about these planning processes were media reports, especially local newspapers, though newsletters also played an important role. Respondents identified the need to bolster communication methods employed by planning processes in order to keep the public informed. Among the suggestions made by planning process participants were increasing the flow of information, both to provide information to planning table participants in understandable ways, and as mechanisms to communicate with the general public so they can provide useful input. These findings are echoed in studies by Shindler & Neburka (1997) and Buchy & Hoverman (2000). Planning participants also identified the need to understand how to evaluate public input (Halseth & Booth, 2003). Communication and sharing of information about the planning process with the public has also been examined by Wondolleck ef al. (1996). These authors identified the importance of fostering effective two-way communication between stakeholder representatives and their constituents in order to maintain focus on a group's goals and objectives and to formalize the representative's accountability to constituency. However, it should be noted that such accountably, though necessary, increases the time-demands of stakeholder representatives, and may require additional skills to be developed (these constraints parallel those found in the recreation participation literature; this is discussed below). Discretionary time and access to resources has been found to affect the opportunities that people have for participating in outdoor recreation activities: More & Stevens (2000) found that people with lower incomes faced barriers to participation in recreation activities due to user-fees, equipment costs, and discretionary time. If forest land-use planning processes are to be representative of the range of recreationists (and other stakeholders) then the processes ought to be accessible and be able to address socio-economic barriers to participation, both for recreationists and their representatives. Although all civil society stakeholders face unique challenges, the outdoor recreation constituency has a particularly severe constraint on their participation: discretionary time. Unlike some stakeholder groups concerned with their livelihood or day-to-day concerns, recreation interests are specifically concerned with their use of discretionary time: there is, therefore, a built-in competition between using their discretionary time for recreation and using it for participating in processes to protect their interests. Also, some forms of recreation are routinely enjoyed away from the home area of the recreationist, further competing with the opportunity for active participation in non-local planning processes. The demands placed on leisure time are typically higher in participatory forms of democratic tradition than in representative forms, as higher degrees of effort and commitment, such as the development and attainment of skills and knowledge, are required for the functioning of participatory democracies (Hemingway, 1999). In an examination of whether decision-making processes are representative of public values, Overdevest (2000) concludes that: "To the extent that participation in decision making is 36 conditioned by unbalanced incentives, neither the participatory nor representative democracy models can succeed without overcoming structural barriers to participation [e.g. income, time, knowledge]" (p. 694). In conclusion, characteristics of meaningful public participation (including the strength of representation) can be summarized as illustrated in Table 2.3. Table 2.3. Characteristics of meaningful public participation. • Achievement of procedural fairness. • Achievement of distributive fairness. • Open and transparent process. • Opportunities to influence process. • Opportunities to influence outcomes. • Opportunities for knowledge acquisition. • Ability of participants to communicate ideas. • Opportunities to negotiate constituency's interests. • Intensity of process sufficient to address issue at hand. • Structural barriers are recognized and addressed. • People at planning table are representative of their constituency. • People at table have technical competence. • Accountability is clearly defined. • Imbalances in power among planning table participants are addressed. • Communication between planning participants and their constituencies is strong. As socio-economic representativeness is important in land-use planning (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000), one criterion for evaluating the success of a planning process is the degree of representation present in the process (Mascarenhas & Scarce, 2004). Thus, meaningful public participation is a function of those characteristics identified above. However, it would be unreasonable to expect all of these characteristics to be met in a single process. Meaningful public participation can occur when a majority of the characteristics are met. There is also a link between meaningful public participation and the strength of representation, as meaningful public participation in representative democracies is closely related to the effectiveness of the planning participants. Good representation is characterized as having the right people (i.e. representatives of all of the affected recreation stakeholders) at the planning table who are competent and effective in their roles and in touch with their constituencies (Figure 2.2); they should be able to influence the planning process and outcomes through meaningful participation (as in Table 2.3). Weak Representation 37 Strong Representation Number of recreation participants at planning table + Influence of recreation participants over process • + Affected groups at planning table • + Divf thiu of '(.-creation participants • + Competence effectiveness ol lecreation participants • + Links between rcciOrition participants dnd their^onstjttioncies • + Figure 2.2. Characteristics of weak and strong representation. Although weak representation would typically be associated with poor perceived representation, and strong representation with good perceived representation, it is possible that disconnects may occur: strong representation may still lead to poor perceived representation if communication between the representatives at the table and their constituencies is poor (e.g. what would constituents base their perceptions of representation on if they were not aware of what occurred at the planning table?). The effectiveness of planning participants is a key component of achieving strong representation. The importance of clear and open communication between the planning participant and their constituency cannot be over-stated; this type of communication permits relevant issues to be identified and possible solutions to be discussed among affected recreation stakeholder groups. In the absence of this type of communication (and it is likely that, despite the best efforts of the planning participants, many affected recreationists will not have an opportunity to engage in dialogue with their representatives; indeed, they may not even know that they are affected), it is expected that recreationists may assess their perceived representation in part based on planning outcomes. In other words, if recreationists are able to satisfy the types of experiences they seek and have desired recreation opportunities at their disposal, then they are likely to report high levels of perceived representation, even if they were not directly consulted by their representative(s). If it is the outcomes that ultimately do influence perceived representation, then this influence may be mediated by recreation characteristics like activity type, degree of recreation specialization (discussed below), and socio-economic characteristics. 2.3. LAND-USE PLANNING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA This section contextualizes the broad concepts of public participation in planning processes governing participation of recreationists in the two study areas examined in this research. A common perception of land-use planning is that it provides certainty. For example, Williams et al. (1998a) offer the following definition: "Land use planning seeks to outline future intentions for the use of land and resources, providing a predictable basis for allocation, development approval, and environmental management" (p. 863). Key to understanding land-use planning in BC is to appreciate how land-use has traditionally been framed, and how recent developments have challenged these traditions. Gunton (1998) has argued that Process Issues Representation Issues 38 the paradigm governing land-use planning processes in B C has historically been based on providing raw materials to other nations. A consequence of this has been that land-use policy has centered on providing a stable environment for resource extraction activities that support the export of raw materials, such as timber; and that any use that is contrary to, or competes with, resource extraction is resisted as economic certainty may be threatened. Williams era/. (1998a) claim that "BC has been the site of some of the most contentious land use conflicts in Canada's history" (p. 861). During this contentious period, environmental interests gained prominence over the forest-industry's hold over the framing of forest land-use through media and market campaigns that resulted in what has been characterized as the "war in the woods". Evidence of this conflict included protracted court actions, public demonstrations, acts of sabotage to logging equipment, economic boycotts of forest products, public conflicts between conservationists and industrial interests, and legal battles over native land claims and wilderness protection such as Clayoquot Sound, the Stein Valley, and Gwaii Haanas (Wilson, 1998). A result of these conflicts was uncertainty (Williams, Penrose & Hawkes, 1998a). Penrose, Day, & Roseland (1998) suggest four reasons that these land-use conflicts had escalated: a lack of coordination between provincial government ministries, an institutional framework that was driven by economic interests, a lack of trust of land-use managers by stakeholders, and a lack of understanding among stakeholders about how land-use decisions were made. Day, Gunton & Frame (2003) add to these reasons by suggesting that a lack of participation opportunities for the public contributed to the public's mistrust of centralized decision-making in BC. One of the prominent policy initiatives in BC that responded to the forest management crisis in the 1990s was the development of land-use policies through consensus-based processes. A result of the increased influence in forest policy that environmentalists gained through these media battles, as well as the desire of the provincial Government to achieve peace in the woods, was the initiation of processes that incorporated high degrees of stakeholder participation through shared decision-making in land-use and resource planning , such as the Commission on Resources and the Environment (CORE) and Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) (Cashore era/., 2001; Halseth & Booth, 2003; Frame era/., 2004). One outcome of these processes was a doubling of the area of parks and protected areas in the province (Cashore era/., 2001), evidence that the dominant position of the resource sector was being successfully challenged by environmental (and some recreational) constituencies. Prior to 1992, responsibility for forest land-use planning had been primarily in the hands of the British Columbia Ministry of Forests (BCMoF) (Edwards-Craig, Williams & Gunton, 2003; Mascarenhas & Scarce, 2004); these authors also noted that timber considerations dominated planning outcomes, and there was little opportunity for public input. Mascarenhas & Scarce (2004) state that the planning process was "unstructured, informal, and generated little, if any, relevant documentation about the planning process" (p. 18). The new C O R E and L R M P processes introduced the concept of planning tables which drew "disparate sets of local stakeholders and agency officials into the analytic and consensus-building 39 processes that led to regional land use recommendations" (Cashore et al., 2001, p. 40). However, the Government imposed five constraints on land-use planning: (1) a 1 2 % limit on the area of B C that could be designated as protected areas, (2) a 1 0 % limit on the area of the province that could be designated as biodiversity areas, (3) a 6 % limit on planning recommendations on impacts to annual allowable cut (AAC), and the removal of (4) forest tenures allocation and (5) A A C calculation from discussion. These all restricted possible planning outcomes and limited collaboration among stakeholders who viewed these constraints as controls, and served to limit public participation (Mascarenhas & Scarce, 2004). This section reviews the dominant BC public processes that incorporated outdoor recreation and other public interests in the province (i.e. C O R E , L R M P s and certification processes). Other land-use planning processes occur in B C at the park, municipal, and District levels, but these are not the focus of this research due to the importance of the provincial land-base in the two study areas. 2.3.1 T H E COMMISSION ON RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANNING The Commission on Resources and the Environment (CORE) was created in 1992. In their review of collaborative planning in BC , Day era/. (2003) conclude that C O R E "empowered the development of an overall provincial strategy, including regional and strategic land use plans, increased public participation, and Aboriginal involvement, improved government coordination, and dispute resolution processes" (p. 23). C O R E was focused on the four areas of the province that were experiencing the most contentious land-use and resource issues: Vancouver Island, Cariboo-Chilcotin, West Kootenay-Boundary, and East Kootenay (Owen, 1998). Stephen Owen, the C O R E Commissioner, identified the need for the development of land-use planning processes that were inclusive, that addressed the range of values present across the province's landscape, and which contributed to the achievement of social, ecological, and economic sustainability (Owen, 1998). To achieve these three objectives, the public's participation in the C O R E process had to be meaningful, the resultant land-use management plans would have to balance resource uses and emphasize consensus among stakeholders through shared decision-making, and finally the C O R E process had to be comprehensive and consistent across the province and include a mechanism for appeals of decisions and other disputes (Owen, 1998). C O R E was charged with fulfilling two mandates. First, C O R E would initiate a land-use planning mechanism that would serve to achieve social, ecological, and economic sustainability; develop interagency coordination to assist in the attainment of sustainability; and employ increased levels of public participation in the development of these plans. Second, C O R E would monitor and evaluate the process, and advise government as independent voice. To achieve these mandates, C O R E had full public inquiry powers, and could compel testimony and hold public hearings; When C O R E was canceled in 1996, partly due to none of the four C O R E processes being able to reach consensus on recommendations to government, the second mandate remained unfulfilled (Day et al., 2003; Gunton, Day & Williams, 2003). 40 C O R E gave B C citizens their first opportunity to become actively engaged in the regional land-use decision-making process on Crown land: "The C O R E regional processes were set up as multi-stakeholder, shared-decision-making processes" (British Columbia Commission on Resources and Environment, 1995, p. 35). As this process served as BC's initiation to public participation at a large scale, it is not surprising that some difficulties emerged. Glover (2004) has noted that strong core-group identification may lead to the fragmentation of the collective whole; an example of this may have occurred at the Cariboo-Chilcotin C O R E process among tourism operators. Although only one tourism seat was planned for the process, the tourism stakeholders felt that the number of seats they had should match the five seats that forestry stakeholders were allocated. The resultant five tourism seats represented the interests of resorts and campgrounds, freshwater fishing, hotels and restaurants, fish and wildlife, and commercial backcountry (Williams, Penrose & Hawkes, 1998a, 1998b). Compounding this fragmentation of tourism interests was an inequity in the allocation of resources to stakeholder representatives and the abilities of the representatives themselves. The level of resources that the B C M o F was able to provide to the forestry stakeholders (e.g. maps, inventories) was not matched by Ministry of Small Business, Tourism & Culture in their supporting role to the tourism sector. The tourism representatives were volunteers, while some of the other resource sectors were represented by paid, professional lobbyists and negotiators (Williams era/., 1998b). An ironic conclusion of the tourism representatives was that the resultant twenty-four sectors that were represented in the process was too many and resulted in an unwieldy process that was difficult to manage and participate in (Williams era/., 1998a). The C O R E process failed to make substantive progress on land-use zoning (Penrose era/., 1998). Penrose, Day, & Roseland (1998) suggest that community forestry may be a better vehicle to achieve integrated resource management and coordinate stakeholder input, as it is not a time-bounded process, people have a better-defined stake in outcomes, and the geographic scale is more manageable. 2.3.2 LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS Land and Resource Management Pans (LRMPs) were initiated to develop strategic land-use plans for those areas of the province that were not covered by C O R E , and were initially managed by the Land Use Coordination Office (LUCO) and the BC Ministries of Forests and Environment Lands and Parks 2 (Day et al., 2003). Shared decision-making continued to be the framework that would be used at the planning tables. Whereas C O R E made broad recommendations, L R M P s were to develop more detailed plans (Halseth & Booth, 2003). L R M P s differed from C O R E in other respects: they dealt with smaller areas of land (sub-regional scale as opposed to the regional scope of CORE) ; and government officials, largely in the background at C O R E tables, played a more central role in L R M P s . Despite an emphasis on shared-decision-making, two distinct groups (sectors) emerged in land-use planning processes throughout the province: conservation and development. L R M P tables could allocate land into four categories: protected 2 After the 2001 election LUCO was brought into the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. 41 areas, special management zones, general resource extraction, and enhanced resource extraction (Frame et al., 2004). The L R M P s that were developed for the Dawson Creek Forest District and the S e a -to-Sky are briefly examined in terms of their approach to outdoor recreation resources and values. 2.3.2.1 The Dawson Creek LRMP The Dawson Creek L R M P was initiated in 1992 and was approved at the end of March, 1999. The planning area for the Dawson Creek L R M P was 2.9 million hectares. This plan sought to balance resource development with the protection of environmental and recreation resources (British Columbia Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks, 1999). The seventeen constituencies of the Dawson Creek L R M P Working Group were: Ranching/Agriculture Tourism/Economic Development Trapping Environment Recreation (consumptive) Recreation (non-consumptive) Guide Outfitter Oil and Gas Mining Forest Sector (coniferous) Forest Sector (deciduous) Small Business Organized Labour Local Government Saulteau First Nations BC Hydro Utilities and Transmission The general management directive identified for recreation and tourism in the plan was to: "Sustain and manage a complete spectrum of public, commercial and tourism-related recreation values, opportunities and activities" (British Columbia Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks, 1999, p. 17). Objectives for the management of recreation were identified for all management zones in the planning area, including in particular, specific management objectives for five resource management subzones in which wilderness recreation resource values would be sustained. The Dawson Creek L R M P also recommended that policy related to commercial recreation recognize and balance non-commercial recreation uses (British Columbia Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks, 1999). 2.3.2.2 The Sea-to-Sky LRMP The multitude of economic, ecological, and social values in the Sea-to-Sky Corridor has provided challenges for forest planners and managers. A number of forest land-use planning processes have sought solutions for resource management in the Sea-to-Sky Corridor at a variety of spatial scales. These plans have included rational planning approaches like the Whistler Local Resource Use Plan, a strategic planning process carried out at the local level that addressed complex, or competing, resource issues related to specific integrated management objectives (Haddock, 1999) that was initiated in 1987. Transactive planning approaches have included the development of a rock climbing strategy for three 42 area parks that involved the local rock climbing community (BC Parks, n.d.), and the recent Sea-to-Sky Land and Resource Management Plan (i_RMP). The large number of forest land-use management plans developed over the years results from the tensions between competing forest land-uses in the Sea-to-Sky Corridor, particularly between timber and outdoor recreation values. The Sea-to-Sky L R M P was initiated in early 2001 with the goal of balancing and integrating the use of Crown land. The L R M P planning table consisted of twelve stakeholder groups, an observer from the Squamish First Nation, an Elected Officials Forum, a backcountry recreation forum, and the project management team of British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource management (BCMSRM) employees. The twelve stakeholder groups were: • Forestry (TFL 38) • Agriculture • Forestry (TSA) • Energy • Non-motorized Recreation • Labour • Motorized Recreation • Minerals and Aggregates • Front-country Tourism • Fish and Wildlife • Back-country Tourism • Conservation & Environment The planning table met twenty times between 2002 and 2004. The planning area for the Sea-to-Sky L R M P was approximately 1.1 million hectares; 2 2 % of this area are parks or protected areas. This L R M P completed the public participation phase of the process in mid-October, 2004, when recommendations were submitted to government. Among the recommendations made to government were eight that were relevant to outdoor recreation ( B C M S R M , 2004a). The L R M P table recommended that: 1. Wildland zones, which recognized areas that have high wildlife habit and wilderness characteristics, be removed from the timber harvesting land base, and that recreation access in these areas is to follow the recommendations of the Backcountry Recreation Forum. 2. Visual landscape management is to be the principle management objective for the front-country zone, as recreation, tourism and local residents are particularly sensitive to visual quality issues; all commercial and industrial development should be subject to visual landscape management. 3. Within the integrated management zone, resources should be balanced among the interests of all stakeholders; twenty-one key recreation features have been identified in this zone, which will require current recreation inventories to be maintained. 43 4. In the wildlife buffer area, recreation carrying capacity will be employed to both assess the impacts of recreation activities on wildlife and inform the degree of recreation use that the area can sustain. 5. Government coordinates an access management program that is guided by affected stakeholders, as access management is an important issue in the area. 6. Suggestions from the Sea-to-Sky Backcountry Recreation Forums (for both winter and summer activities) be adopted. The Sea-to-Sky Backcountry Recreation Forums were guided by the vision to "share the backcountry amongst recreational users in a way that all types of users have reasonable access to an enjoyable experience" ( B C M S R M , 2004a, p. 15). 7. A number of streams be exempt from the development of small-scale in-stream hydro-electric generation, in part due to concerns about lost in-stream recreation opportunities. 8. Decisions regarding four areas that support significant and diverse resource values be deferred to government. These recommendations were not unanimously supported by all members of the planning table as the energy and labour representatives did not sign in agreement. In late December, 2004, the provincial government announced that the L R M P had moved in to the next phase of the process with the initiation of consultations with local First Nations groups. When these consultations are complete, government staff will draft the L R M P that reflects elements of the recommendations made by the L R M P planning table, the consultations with First Nations and provincial cabinet direction ( B C M S R M , 2004b, 2005a, 2005b). 2.3.3 EVALUATIONS OF CORE AND LRMPs The ideals of public participation that both C O R E and L R M P processes aspired to did not reflect the realities of the policies that were ultimately implemented. Cashore era/. (2001) characterize these processes as "regionalized experimentation on a leash" (p. 32), as the premier's office maintained a tight rein on these processes. While citizen representatives at C O R E and L R M P tables did have some degree of influence over the recommendations made to government, there was no real change in the way that BC approached land-use planning as political and economic considerations were influential in the final plans that were adopted. Land-use planning decisions were ultimately made by cabinet (Cashore era/., 2001). Edwards-Craig etal. (2003) examined the degree to which shared decision making (SDM) principles, guidelines, and outcomes were realized in BC's L R M P s , from the perspective of tourism respondents who participated in these processes. A survey was conducted of 31 tourism representatives at 17 L R M P processes that had been conducted between 1995 and 2002. Among the findings of this research was that tourism stakeholders were generally satisfied with how S D M mechanisms help shape the L R M P 44 outcomes. The main motivation for the tourist representatives' involvement was a perception that the L R M P process was the best way to achieve their constituency's goals, and a belief that that tourism's goals and objectives were clearly identified going into process. The tourism representatives generally agreed that the L R M P process was the best way of developing plans and served public interest, and believed that tourism interests were better accommodated in L R M P s than they would have been in other processes. However, "respondents were not convinced of the value of the end results generated" (Edwards-Craig era/., 2003, p. 41) and were unclear on what the end result actually provided in terms of satisfactory outcomes, implementation strategy, and a shared commitment to implementation. The tourism representative respondents "were even less certain that the resulting L R M P s had actually addressed the specific concerns of the tourism industry" (Edwa