Open and sectoral models of public participation: does model type make a difference in land use planning

Two methods, "open" and "sectoral;" of including citizens as partners in land use decision making in British Columbia were examined for their ability to achieve social and environmental goals of government. The "open" model allows participation of any citizen where as members of the "sectoral" model are chosen based on the interest they represent. Two "open cases" (Prince George and Vanderhoof) and two "sectoral" cases (Robson Valley and Dawson Creek) representing land and resource management planning processes (LRMP) in north central British Columbia were used in this study. Social criteria (inclusion, empowerment, communication, and understanding) were measured using a four point Likert scale in a mail survey of LRMP table members and interview responses were coded using a four point agreement scale. A mail survey (using a percent scale), interviews (using a four point agreement scale), and a document review were used to assess how well environmental criteria (impacts, connective corridors, monitoring criteria, disturbance ecology, and biodiversity conservation) at four levels (general within the plan; by individual resource management zone (RMZ); between RMZs; or with respect to adjacent planning areas) were considered in the four cases. The mail survey and interviews were also used to gain an assessment of how well prepared the participants were to discuss environmental issues. I used the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance, with a significance level of 5%, and a multiple comparison test and found differences for 14 of32 comparisons of the social criteria from the mail survey and interview data which indicated the open model may be more effective in achieving the social objectives of the LRMP process. Lack of differences for the environmental criteria do not allow rejection of the null hypothesis.