Full text of DOI:10.1080/01944360008976123

This article was downloaded by: [University of Otago]
On: 08 September 2013, At: 15:25
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of the American Planning Association
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa20
The Paradox of Participation and the Hidden Role of
Information: A Case Study
Kevin S. Hanna
Published online: 26 Nov 2007.
To cite this article: Kevin S. Hanna (2000) The Paradox of Participation and the Hidden Role of Information: A Case Study,
Journal of the American Planning Association, 66:4, 398-410, DOI: 10.1080/01944360008976123
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360008976123
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Paradox of
Participation and
the Hidden Role of
Information
A Case Study
Kevin S. Hanna
This article examines the complex and
often indirect role of participation and
information in an integrated planning
context. The case study is based in a di-
verse urban-rural estuarine setting
where an integrated resource manage-
ment program was established to help
manage environmental and economic
planning issues. The results of the re-
search suggest that the use of partici-
pation by those not in government as a
measure of success in achieving pro-
gram objectives must be approached
with caution—and research resource-
fulness—in order to form an accurate
image of impact and origin. The work
supports the idea in planning theory
that information has a transformative
function that can alter perceptions and
mindsets in advance of a decision
phase, and affects planning systems at
all stages. Dichotomies in opinion of
program success and performance may
be linked to information access. Con-
sensus building among government
agencies and nongovernmental organi-
zations also requires broad access to
information. The research indicates
that participation by proxy can also be
a significant source of influence.
lanning practice is an increasingly diverse realm. Strong links have been
forged to disparate fields in environment and resource management,
many of which were not long ago treated as being quite separate. The
P
role of planners now often focuses on the integration of social, economic,
and environmental objectives into management decisions. The challenge of
integration centres on accommodating the diverse values and demands that
are often made apparent through public participation. Indeed, public par-
ticipation is viewed as such an essential component of the planning or pol-
icy process that the degree to which it is included and its apparent influence
are frequently seen as measures of success. However, participation has a rela-
tively complex function within planning and its inclusion, or exclusion, may
not always be a good measure of program efficacy.
A range of factors, such as addressing implementation obstacles, un-
derstanding baseline conditions, and providing venues for cooperative de-
cision making, are important to the success of integrated planning. These
factors are interactive, but they also present a paradox in measuring pro-
gram success. Their influence may be indirect and can have the appearance
of being far from participatory. When viewing the impact and role of par-
ticipation, the temptation might be to search for clear demonstrations of in-
clusion, such as public membership on decision making committees, exten-
sive consultation programs, or an obvious capacity building effort. But the
impact of participation can be more circumspect, and planning initiatives
that lack overt participation instruments can still be affected by non-
governmental stakeholders.
Hanna is an assistant professor in the De-
partment of Geography and Programme in
Planning at the University of Toronto.
Journal of the American Planning Association,
Vol. 66, No. 4, Autumn 2000. © American
Planning Association, Chicago, IL.
This article concentrates on the influence of participation and infor-
mation. The objective here is to present an alternative and composite view of
N
N
398 APA Journal Autumn 2000 Vol. 66, No. 4

THE PARADOX OF PARTICIPATION AND THE HIDDEN ROLE OF INFORMATION
the role of participation in planning by highlighting the
formal interests when designing and implementing poli-
cies or projects (Mitchell, 1986). On the other hand, a
strategic approach is often less inclusive. It focuses on
cooperation and communication among decision mak-
ers, and usually centres on developing a structured and
consistent forum for policy development and imple-
mentation. In the strategic context, integration is best
described as a process of increasing organization and
order in a decision-making system (Walther, 1987). Im-
provements or changes in the collection or dissemina-
tion of information become as important to strategic
integrated planning as broad participation would be to
a comprehensive approach.
While there may be no universal IRM model, Child
and Armour (1995) suggest that nevertheless there is an
implicit consensus that if a program is to have the ca-
pacity for integration, it should reduce interagency frag-
mentation, engage in broad consultation, emphasize co-
operation and compromise, and facilitate a bottom-up
approach to decision making and implementation.
In Child and Armour’s (1995) discussion, participation
implies a variety of forms ranging from the type of grass-
roots influence envisioned by Arnstein (1969) to en-
hanced agency-based processes. These elements high-
light the potential for implementation problems, since
even modest forms of integration require a change in
power relationships. Thus it should not be surprising to
find that the interpretation of “broad based”—who
should be involved and what their participation should
encompass—can vary from strategic to comprehensive
processes.
If consultation is an integral part of integrated plan-
ning, then the issue of who is consulted arises. Partici-
pation implies many things, but the common assump-
tion is that it is the meaningful involvement of people
in decisions that affect their lives (Draper, 1975). By ex-
tension, public participation is democracy at the sim-
plest level (Nelkin, 1982). But Grima (1985) writes that
in practice there is often a dichotomy between providing
information, which suggests a one-way process, and dia-
logue, which suggests a two-way approach. The process
may not be about involvement as much as it is about in-
formation, education, public relations, or simply “get-
ting a project through” (Grima, 1985). Forester (1989,
1993) might describe such participation elements in
terms of planning rhetoric, where the role of informa-
tion is not to guide or inform the process, but rather to
guide and form the opinions of stakeholders—to per-
suade them to buy into policy. Thus planning runs the
risk of becoming a reinforcing exercise for predeter-
mined decisions, where participation serves as window
dressing, lending credibility to the decisions rather than
actually helping to construct them.
important influence of information and peripheral par-
ticipation. Information gathering plays an important
role in affecting agency decisions, and information de-
velopment and participation are essential aspects of an
effective integrated planning process, even if such activ-
ities are oblique or hidden. A case study of integrated re-
source management (IRM) in Vancouver, on Canada’s
Pacific Coast, is used to demonstrate that planning pro-
grams centred on institutional stakeholders are influ-
enced by information activities and secondary partici-
pation. Since the case study program is based on inte-
gration, the article begins by defining integrated re-
source management; a brief theoretical discussion of in-
formation and participation issues in planning follows.
The case study then starts with a description of the phys-
ical and administrative setting. The different views that
the program’s stakeholders have of direct participation
are then examined and contrasted with the peripheral,
or indirect, influences also identified in the study.
Integrated Resource Management:
Planning Around Information and
Participation
Nelkin (1982) and Mitchell (1986) discuss inte-
grated resource management (IRM), or integrated plan-
ning, in terms of a consultation process requiring the co-
ordination and sharing of values—not just among
agencies, but among stakeholders. In an ideal sense, in-
tegrated processes are broadly interactive and incorpo-
rate the diverse values of all stakeholders into manage-
ment and planning strategies. But IRM has not emerged
in the form of one model. It has acquired different in-
terpretations, often dependent on the objectives and val-
ues of those who use it as a rationale for their activities.
The efficacy of such approaches is context sensitive, and
like any policy approach it is vulnerable to implementa-
tion obstacles.
A fundamental issue in integrated planning is the
meaning of integration. Over time, a collection of prin-
ciples and descriptions has been articulated in resource
management, but even these vary among practitioners.
Most descriptions centre on two themes: (1) compre-
hensiveness, which emphasizes consultation and partic-
ipation among all stakeholders; and (2) a strategic, or
tractable, approach based on a process of interagency co-
operation functioning in well defined jurisdictions and
physical boundaries. In practice, these two themes can
also be combined. Comprehensiveness demands that a
process include the sharing and coordination of the val-
ues and demands of a range of agencies, the public, and
N
N
APA Journal Autumn 2000 Vol. 66, No. 4 399

KEVIN S. HANNA
A participation process within any integrated frame-
sible. It has the capacity to encompass all affected stake-
holders and ensure that their concerns are incorporated
into a final decision or planning product. However, par-
ticipation can also be limiting. Where formal processes
or other opportunities for participation exist, the prob-
lems of who participates, what interests do they repre-
sent, and to what extent do they reflect plurality become
practical issues for planners or other policy practitioners.
Dichotomies also commonly form. Agency and non-
agency interests may develop different expectations of
participation; and dichotomies between participants’
perspectives on the nature of the planning program, the
definition of impacts, or even the strength or legitimacy
of participation are not infrequent in planning processes
(Danke et al., 1983; King et al., 1998; Kweit & Kweit,
1980).
Considering the attention in planning discourse
given to participation, one might readily assume that the
existence of discourse among stakeholders, whatever its
form, is a measure of the quality and influence of partic-
ipation. However, empowerment is not always equiva-
lent to control. What passes as empowerment may lead
to co-option: Even the most well developed participation
program cannot ensure that it will significantly influ-
ence a decision. The provision or nonprovision of par-
ticipation events, or dialogue, is a sparse measure of par-
ticipation and the reasons for its influence (Stiftel, 1983).
The relative influence of participation is more likely a
product of the impact of information and the way that
communicative action affects the preferences of decision
makers. The impact of information can be determined
by processes other than the simple availability of formal
participation venues; it can be the byproduct of other as-
pects of planning systems and is dependent on the qual-
ity of communication, not the format.
Participation presents a paradox. It is viewed as an
essential and influential part of planning success, but
may not always be as significant to outcomes as hidden
information systems, especially those that may be lim-
ited to institutional stakeholders. Hence, the apparent
nonexistence (or weak existence) of participation does
not mean that a process has failed to consider the opin-
ions or perceptions of stakeholders, only that such
influences may be circumspect and embedded in other
information sources. In some settings the relevance of
participation may lie in its ability to contribute to infor-
mation development.
Information is most influential when it is invisible
(Innes, 1998). Thus processes where data collection is a
key program objective can be influenced by information
gathering and the gradual building of data, even before
information is “fed” into the decision-making stage. In-
formation can change the individual by shaping the
work should not simply be there to legitimize the proc-
ess nor to accord perfunctory deference to public in-
volvement. This suggests a degree of tokenism, where
informing, limited consultation, and placation domi-
nate decision making (Arnstein, 1969). The goals and
objectives of participation should ultimately be to sup-
port and enhance the process and to realize better planning.
Consensus can be difficult to achieve, and participation
can help by revealing and isolating extremes or creating
relative agreement among stakeholders. While many
agencies may include a framework for interagency com-
munication within their mission statement, in practice
joint action may be rare and might conflict with indi-
vidual bureaucratic interests. Perhaps the greatest diffi-
culty in achieving IRM is not convincing planners of the
importance of considering multiple values and objec-
tives; rather the challenge is in achieving a shared un-
derstanding of how to implement IRM.
Planning as Communicative and
Information-Based Action
Systematic patterns of communication and inter-
action in planning processes are affected by social, po-
litical, and economic structures. Authority and power
relations not only transmit information, they also per-
petuate political ideology, values, consent for actions,
and trust among interacting agencies (Forester, 1989).
Within an integrated context the manner in which in-
formation is collected, exchanged, or presented conveys
specific messages about the state of a process and its in-
fluence on participating agencies. Distortions in infor-
mation and communicative actions occur, and they can
be deliberate or not. Agency relations function in subtle
ways: to legitimate and perpetuate themselves while ex-
tending power; to exclude particular affected groups sys-
tematically from decision-making processes; to promote
the political illusion that only science and technology
can solve problems; or to restrict political argument, par-
ticipation, and activity on public policy alternatives that
conflict with existing patterns of power (Forester, 1989,
1993).
Innes (1998) writes that an emerging paradigm
places planning within a context where information and
communication become embedded within the percep-
tions that planners develop through participation proc-
esses, and this ultimately creates meaning. But the cre-
ation of such meaning may often be subtle, indirect, or
by proxy. Herein lies the problem of participation, or per-
haps more appropriately, the problem of understanding
what role and form participation can play in a planning
process. Participation ideally is broad, overt, and acces-
N
N
400 APA Journal Autumn 2000 Vol. 66, No. 4

THE PARADOX OF PARTICIPATION AND THE HIDDEN ROLE OF INFORMATION
problem, defining the choices, and providing a perspec-
A Case Study: The Fraser River
Estuary Management Program
tive from which options are viewed. Innes writes that re-
search (Innes, 1988a, 1988b; Weiss & Gruber, 1984) in-
dicates that the process of information development
(collection, analysis, and discussion) produces policy
change seemingly independent of the decision-making
stage. The premises and the innate axioms of agency
participants are formed by exposure to information.
Change occurs before the formal decision. Alternatively,
information can reinforce bias by strengthening the per-
spectives of individuals and institutions. Bias can be re-
inforced by selective interpretation and by controlling
the dissemination of information to both institutional
and external stakeholders.
The relationship between participation and infor-
mation centres on the nature of participation. The criti-
cal questions are: Who is participating in the process and
how? Participation helps shape information develop-
ment. Its influence is synergistic. Participation not only
facilitates the addition to the planning process of new
information and new interpretations of existing data; it
also diffuses knowledge to those who may be peripheral
players in the process (agency or nonagency actors).
Hence it is difficult to measure the success of participa-
tion. Preparing and analysing data, interacting with
nonagency players, and presenting information to the
public can be transformative actions—even though their
impact may not be explicit. Information is a key compo-
nent of consensus building (Habermas, 1976, 1979). The
process of developing and agreeing on information is a
critical part of embedding the influence of information
on individual and institutional understandings (Innes,
1998).
The case study that follows highlights key themes
and challenges within theoretical discussions of partici-
pation and information in planning. Participation can
influence planning activities in forms other than direct
events. Participation and information can be complex,
and sometimes ambiguous, components of planning
that exert influence indirectly. In the case study, it ap-
pears at first glance that there is only minor influence by
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The program
has little apparent capacity for incorporating the views
of NGOs, and its integrated activities are centred on
agencies. But the study shows that while overt participa-
tion may be lacking, NGO stakeholders may exert influ-
ence indirectly, through secondary participation venues.
Integrated approaches can also assume a comprehensive
or strategic approach to planning with a different em-
phasis on participation in either context. Information
development and indirect participation form a signifi-
cant part of this program’s strategic approach, and have
exerted a distinct, albeit sometimes unseen, influence.
The Setting
The Fraser River Estuary region (Vancouver, British
Columbia) has been one of the fastest growing urban
areas in North America. Its population is now about 1.5
million and has been projected to increase to about 2.5
million by 2006.1 The nature of urban form and patterns
of expansion have been largely determined by a restric-
tive topography and provincial legislation limiting the
conversion of agricultural land to other uses.2 The estu-
ary contains significant wildlife and fish habitat. Rem-
nant wetlands provide a significant staging area for the
migration of birds from Alaska and northern Canada.
Dyking, filling, dredging, and drainage works have al-
tered about 70% of the fish and wildlife habitat; only 1%
of bogland still exists, and less than 1% of original wet
meadow remains. Between 1967 and 1982 about 11% of
natural tidal wetlands were lost (Fraser River Estuary
Management Program, 1994) and about 90% of salt and
brackish marsh in the river’s arms disappeared, largely
due to dyking and dredging (Dorecy, 1993). The most
significant losses were before the mid 1980s. However,
large areas of estuarine marsh still remain undisturbed.
Habitat planning evolved as losses became more acute.
Strategies moved beyond simple regulation to encom-
pass formal loss and compensation policies and specific
program initiatives such as research and data collection,
land use inventories, and the integration of habitat con-
servation into local and regional planning.
Estuarine waters are the conduit for the salmon runs
that are now a key element in the survival of the threat-
ened Northeast Pacific fishery. A review of current and
historical data shows that since the formation of the
Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP),
overall water and sediment quality have improved or
have been maintained, and pollutants are now within re-
quired parameters (Hanna, 1999). Presently, water qual-
ity management centres on the impacts of storm sewers,
industrial inputs, and the sediment contamination
legacy of past practices.
Rapid urban growth, interagency conflict, and the
perception that environmental quality in the Fraser
River Estuary was rapidly deteriorating led the provin-
cial and federal governments (the senior levels) to con-
sider a new approach to estuarine planning. Authority
over environment and resource issues is divided between
the two jurisdictions, and in some areas it is delegated
to local government. Responsibilities overlap with re-
spect to habitat, fisheries, land use planning, and the reg-
ulation of water quality. Comprehensive planning was
N
N
APA Journal Autumn 2000 Vol. 66, No. 4 401

KEVIN S. HANNA
largely absent, and in the 1970s the two senior levels of
government initiated the Fraser River Estuary Study
(FRES). The FRES was a three-stage process undertaken
to inventory environmental conditions, recommend a
new management framework, and develop a strategy for
implementing a preferred planning option. The FRES
was the precursor of the FREMP. The study process rec-
ommended several management options. Each con-
tained some form of integrated management, but both
governments preferred the alternative that addressed ju-
risdictional tractability issues.3 The FREMP was subse-
quently established in 1985. The program design main-
tains existing authority and agency responsibilities, but
provides an integrated framework within which plan-
ning is coordinated and implemented. In terms of the
IRM approach employed, the program is strategic, with
comprehensive elements focusing on agency participa-
tion. While the primary objective has often been seen as
improving environmental quality, its role in facilitating
cooperative decision making and integrated planning
among agencies is broader. The core mission is to ac-
commodate economic and social uses while maintain-
ing or improving environmental quality. The program’s
approach centres on an integrated framework that
stresses the use of multiple-use criteria and integration
of planning practices among agencies. Implementation
of activities is ongoing and evolving in terms of hierar-
chical integration, planning methods, and responses to
implementation obstacles.
Political Level
(federal and provincial cabinet ministers,
mayors, harbour commissioners)
Management Committee
(senior civil servants)
Program Secretariat
(program support staff)
Standing Committees
Water and Land Use Planning, Water Quality
Management, Development Approvals, Habitat
Classification, Process Planning
(senior civil servants, government scientists,
planners)
Figure 1 depicts the program structure, which is
based on committees that direct specific activities. Most
components have either planning or research functions.
The Management Committee has the predominant de-
cision-making role and directs the program. The politi-
cal level has been quite peripheral and seems to exercise
little direct influence, despite its formal appearance at
the top of the agency’s organization. The formal organi-
zation chart also suggests a rigid flow of information
and authority through the committee hierarchy and the
secretariat. However, the program actually functions in
a less static way. Standing committees and subcommit-
tees interact with each other, as well as with the program
secretariat, and they interact directly with the Manage-
ment Committee. The Environmental Review Commit-
tee (ERC) has a strong applied planning function. It
serves as an integrated approvals venue for development
along the foreshore, regardless of the scale of the pro-
posal. The ERC’s formal approvals system simplified the
application process for industry, and reduced the po-
tential for interagency conflict by replacing the previous
disjointed approach.4 Composition of the committees
is limited to civil servants who represent the specific pro-
gram and regulatory responsibilities of their agencies.
Subcommittees
Habitat Designation, Recreation Planning,
Development Coordination, Environmental
Monitoring
(senior civil servants, government scientists,
planners, ad hoc representation from
academic and special interest groups)
FIGURE 1. FREMP organizational structure.
Direct participation by NGOs has been infrequent.
Though opportunities for public comment on ERC ap-
plications exist, the other committees have few such for-
mal venues. Until recently, public consultation had been
ad hoc and limited largely to exercises offered during the
development of specific plans. A Public Advisory Com-
mittee was formed to provide advice on shoreline devel-
opment, but it is a recent innovation. Overall, the pro-
N
N
402 APA Journal Autumn 2000 Vol. 66, No. 4

THE PARADOX OF PARTICIPATION AND THE HIDDEN ROLE OF INFORMATION
gram emphasis is on agencies as the primary target for
influence.
The program bureaucracy is small and provides sup-
issues not apparent in the reporting literature and to
obtain information that could be used to construct a
broadly applied questionnaire. The interviews were con-
ducted with a sample of the program’s stakeholders: each
committee chair, randomly selected committee mem-
bers, representatives of industry organizations, and a
round-table discussion with representatives of environ-
mental and conservation organizations (28 stakeholders
in all). The subsequent survey asked all stakeholders for
their views of changes in environmental quality, elements
of program performance and influence, and changes re-
quired to improve program efficacy. The survey results
reported here relate to the questionnaire sections that
addressed participation. The participation variables ex-
plicitly addressed in the survey include:
port for the committees. Data collection, research, plan-
ning, and membership in all program components is
provided by member agencies and their personnel,
though many of these activities are coordinated through
the program. The program facilitates integrated plan-
ning and decision making; yet despite its apparently
hollow appearance, it has become a clearinghouse for in-
formation, research, conflict resolution, foreshore de-
velopment approvals, and recently, for the development
of planning products that integrate river and upland
activities into management plans (akin to community
plans).5 Current planning components implemented
through the FREMP venue include a federal no-net-loss
policy for fisheries habitat, habitat coding based on eco-
logical productivity, land use designation, and coordi-
nated application of multijurisdictional regulations for
fish and wildlife habitat.
• identifying ways that the public is involved and
the role of participation;
• gauging support for change in the program’s
approach to participation; and
• measuring perceptions of constituency influence.
The process of program development and imple-
mentation has the appearance of being based on a ratio-
nal planning approach. Objectives and goals were first
identified, data collection programs were then initiated,
alternative management strategies were identified, and
program and planning choices were made. The ultimate
formal product of the planning process was the Man-
agement Plan for the estuary that all agencies “bought
into.” In reality, the program’s evolution has been quite
different, and not so linear. From its inception, informa-
tion management and data collection have been key as-
pects of the FREMP. Water quality and habitat invento-
ries dominate information development. The initial
FRES process resulted in a basic understanding of base-
line water and habitat conditions. But an understanding
of trends in environmental quality and the physical dis-
tribution of environmental conditions was lacking, and
there was no initial agreement on estuary water quality
objectives, or in some instances the criteria for measuring
impacts. Such issues of agreement have been largely
addressed, and the program has facilitated a consensus
approach to planning and management activities.
Participation themes also emerged from the inter-
views and in written comments added to the survey
forms. The influence and role of information was also
explicitly expressed in the interviews and written re-
sponses. Survey questions about environmental quality
and policy/program implementation issues are dis-
cussed elsewhere (see Hanna, 1999).
The questionnaire was sent to the program’s partic-
ipant population,6 which included government (federal,
provincial, and municipal), industry and business, and
environment and conservation group representatives.
Some questions relating to internal administrative im-
plementation issues appeared only on government
forms. The overall response rate was 50% from a popu-
lation of 180. The small number of responses limited the
potential for using some multivariate methods for data
analysis, but was sufficient for other parametric tools.
Government respondents to the survey were also in rela-
tively senior positions in the civil service, which is a char-
acteristic of the government portion of the population.
The quantitative data described here demonstrate equal-
ity of intervals/variance and normality. Comparisons
are made between the three main types of stakeholder:
government, industry, and environment/conservation
groups.
Method
A three-part study consisting of informal interviews;
a formal, structured survey; and a review of environmen-
tal quality data and reporting documents (institutional
records) was conducted between 1994 and 1997. I also
attended meetings of the FREMP’s Environmental Re-
view Committee (ERC), and made site visits with ERC
members when they considered development applica-
tions. The interviews followed a semistructured, conver-
sational format and were used to learn about program
The nonresponse bias was controlled by sending a
second mailing to those who did not respond in the first
round.7 This approach improved the overall response
rate and helped ensure a representative response profile.
The profile of respondents mirrors their representation
and distribution in the stakeholder population. No
group or interest is under- or overrepresented.
N
N
APA Journal Autumn 2000 Vol. 66, No. 4 403

KEVIN S. HANNA
each of these four instances, government respondents
were more likely to indicate that the public was involved
through such means (see Table 1). The difference in re-
sponses to “consulted about FREMP actions” suggests
that significantly more government than industry or
environment respondents believe that the public is con-
sulted about the program’s actions.
Results and Discussion
How Do Stakeholders View Participation?
What is the role of participation? Respondents were
asked how they thought stakeholders were presently in-
volved in the process, if they would like to see the format
changed, and their perception of the influence of other
constituencies. The structure and strategic nature of the
FREMP has achieved a degree of multisectoral blending
where agencies are concerned, but the role of non-
governmental interests has been less explicit and less
direct. During the presurvey interviews, public partici-
pation was mentioned as a point of contention by envi-
ronment/conservation groups. Industry seemed less in-
terested in participation issues, though there was
concern that business interests were not being ade-
quately considered by the agencies that participate in the
FREMP. Some were concerned that growth objectives
were being subjugated to environmental interests.
In the survey, the list of involvement opportunities
included some options not presently available to NGOs.
These were involvement in decision making by standing
committees, formation of management plans, data col-
lection, monitoring wastewater discharges, and decid-
ing FREMP actions (see Table 1). While there are no op-
portunities for direct involvement, influence can be
exerted indirectly through participating agencies. Par-
ticipating agencies have constituents whose interests
and positions they may champion within the manage-
ment process (e.g., resource use, industry, residential
development, NGOs). Generally, stakeholders had a very
realistic perception of the options provided for partici-
pation, and indeed, the limitations. The question about
how the public is involved centred on how participants
viewed participation options, and where they believed
the most prominent involvement opportunities lie. In
no instance did environment or industry respondents
positively identify an option more frequently than gov-
ernment respondents. The lowest number of positive re-
sponses (“yes”) were for options that suggest direct in-
fluence in decision-making activities. These were
decision making by standing committees, deciding
FREMP actions, monitoring wastewater discharges, in-
tervening in ERC deliberations, and environmental data
collection (see Table 1 for an overview of this survey
question).
Government respondents were also more likely to
select the three most prevalent forms of communication
or participation that the program offers. The FREMP
sponsors and participates in public events where it pro-
motes the program’s initiatives; the program produces
publications for general distribution. But since infor-
mation dissemination has not been wide, some relative
difference among responses would not be unexpected.
The differences among respondents likely reflects rela-
tive awareness of the initiatives that the program has un-
dertaken, its influence on the estuary, and a belief on the
part of government respondents that the public indi-
rectly influences the program’s actions. Indeed, during
interviews several senior civil servants commented that
the creation of the FREMP was in large part a response to
public concern about the state of the estuary, and the
FRES process that led to creating the FREMP contained
significant NGO representation. But among NGO re-
spondents the view is less positive. Fourteen written
comments stating that “the public is not involved in the
FREMP in a meaningful way” were appended to the sur-
vey participation question (11 from NGO respondents
and 3 from government).
The overall view of public participation reflects both
the real opportunities available and the potentially weak
nature of these opportunities. NGO respondents view
the program’s options for influence as limited and with-
out real influence, while government respondents believe
that NGO influence has an impact on decision making.
To support this view, some government stakeholders
stated that the demands/needs of client groups are
brought to the FREMP table through the participation
programs initiated and managed by the agencies them-
selves, and not so much through the events offered by
the FREMP. This is participation by proxy, where the
program serves as a clearinghouse for influence already
exercised. There is a dichotomy in how stakeholders view
participation. But even government supports change
that would ideally include a more visible role for NGO
interests.
The pattern of responses also indicates that respon-
dents generally have a clear idea of what mechanisms the
program uses. There were four options where significant
differences were noted: consultation about FREMP
actions, distribution of publications, participation
through displays and special events, and workshops. In
Should the scope of participation change? The survey
indicates that all stakeholders want a better participa-
tion process. A majority of respondents indicated that
they would like to see changes made to the participation
format (see the bottom of Table 1). However, there were
N
N
404 APA Journal Autumn 2000 Vol. 66, No. 4

THE PARADOX OF PARTICIPATION AND THE HIDDEN ROLE OF INFORMATION
TABLE 1. Summary statistics and chi-square tests for public participation in the FREMP process and change in the
participation approach.
Yes (%)
No (%)
Ind. Env.
Survey questionsa
Gov.b
Ind.
Env.
Total
Gov.
Total
Public participation
In which of the following ways do
you think the public is presently
represented?
Involved in decision-making by
standing committees.
X2 = 0.60, Sig = 0.73
4 (9)
3 (15)
2 (9)
9 (10)
41 (91) 17 (85) 20 (91) 78 (90)
Involved in the formation of
management plans.
X2 = 5.33, Sig = 0.06
14 (31)
8 (18)
1(5)
2 (10)
7 (35)
1 (5)
5 (23)
5 (23)
20 (23)
20 (23)
31 (69) 19 (95) 17 (77) 67 (77)
37 (82) 18 (90) 17 (77) 72 (83)
17 (38) 13 (65) 12 (55) 42 (48)
39 (87) 19 (95) 19 (86) 77 (89)
Involved in environmental data
collection. X2 = 1.20, Sig = 0.54
Involved in habitat restoration.
X2 = 4.57, Sig = 0.10
28 (62)
6 (13)
10 (45) 45 (52)
Involved in monitoring wastewater
discharges. X2 = 1.07, Sig = 0.58
3 (14)
10 (11)
As interveners in the Environmental
Review Committee process.
X2 = 2.90, Sig = 0.23
9 (20)
18 (40)
5 (11)
4 (20)
2 (10)
30 (15)
9 (45)
1 (5)
3 (13)
2 (9)
14 (16)
23 (26)
10 (11)
36 (80) 16 (80) 21 (95) 73 (84)
27 (60) 18 (90) 19 (86) 64 (74)
40 (89) 17 (85) 20 (91) 77 (89)
Consulted about FREMP actions.
X2 =8.88, Sig = 0.01
Involved in deciding FREMP actions.
X2 = 0.37, Sig = 0.82
Through the distribution of
publications. X2 = 15.29, Sig = 0.00
39 (87)
11 (50) 59 (68)
13 (59) 60 (69)
6 (13)
5 (11)
11 (55) 11 (50) 28 (32)
By attending FREMP displays and
events at community festivals.
X2 = 20.12, Sig = 0.00
40 (89)
34 (76)
7 (35)
8 (40)
13 (65)
9 (40)
27 (31)
7 (42)
Through workshops (such as the
Water Quality Management
Workshop). X2 = 12.52, Sig = 0.00
8 (36)
50 (58)
11 (24) 12 (60) 14 (64)
Change in participation approach
Are there any ways that you would
like to see public involvement in
the FREMP change?
X2 = 2.32, Sig = 0.30
26 (62)
7(50)
13 (77) 46 (63)
16 (38)
7 (50)
4 (24)
27 (37)
Notes:
a. X2 is used here to determine if there is a relationship between response to the question (yes or no) and the respondent’s affiliation (the type
of respondent).
b. Gov. = government; Ind. = industry and business; Env. = environment and conservation groups
N
N
APA Journal Autumn 2000 Vol. 66, No. 4 405

KEVIN S. HANNA
no significant differences. Written comments show that
the two most common themes are “nongovernment rep-
resentation on decision making committees” and “im-
proving reporting8 and accountability” (there were 28
comments in total on these two themes, 14 for each type
of comment, and 8 for each from government respon-
dents). The majority of comments from environmental
groups focussed on NGO representation, accountabil-
ity, and reporting. Industry responses centred on two
themes: a questioning of the “utility of public involve-
ment” and a call for more “industry input.” At first
glance, these motifs seem to be contradictory, but a re-
view of the comments suggests that industry responses
are variations on a similar theme. Those questioning the
utility of public input believed that participation proc-
esses can be dominated or hijacked by environmental
groups with narrow agendas. Those seeking more in-
dustry input tended to feel that the industry perspective
was not being represented within the FREMP, and that
the planning and approvals process all too often acqui-
esced to environmental interests.
The written comments provided by government re-
spondents were evenly split among four themes: en-
couraging volunteer support, adding nongovernmental
representation to standing and ad hoc committees, im-
proving reporting and accountability, and improving
public education. All of the comments about public ed-
ucation were made by government respondents. Adding
NGO representation to committees was a common
theme mentioned by federal employees during the pre-
survey interviews. The need to improve reporting and ac-
countability was expressed largely in terms of making
the public and those agencies not directly involved in the
process more aware of the state of the river and the re-
sults of program initiatives.
industry counterparts believed it to be. Politicians were
perceived to be supportive of the program—an interest-
ing perception given the very peripheral role of the po-
litical level. The support of environmental groups was
perceived to be significantly lower by environmental
groups than industry or government respondents
thought it was. The last area of significance is the rating
of general public support for the program. Environ-
mental respondents thought the public had a lower
opinion of the program than they themselves did. The
general impression is that stakeholders tend to think
agencies have a high level of support for the program,
and the survey suggests they do.
Three participation themes are immediately evident
from the survey. First, the quantitative questions and ele-
ments of the written comments show a dichotomy in
participation between government and NGOs. Govern-
ment sees participation opportunities as being more
meaningful and more inclusive than NGO stakeholders
do. Second, despite the dichotomy, all stakeholders want
a change in participation—a more meaningful approach
to NGO involvement. Third, most stakeholders have the
perception that other constituencies are more support-
ive of the program, are more likely to benefit from the
program, and are more influential.9 When these themes
are considered together, the role and impact of NGO
participation appears weak, even nonexistent, and the
case study would seem to indicate that NGO stakehold-
ers have little meaningful involvement in the FREMP.
However, as the next section shows, the image of partici-
pation is more complex. The interviews and other por-
tions of the survey suggest that participation is not
wholly absent, nor is it without influence. In this con-
text, the process of information development or gather-
ing also emerges as being as or more significant, perhaps,
than direct stakeholder participation.
How influential do stakeholders think others are? All
respondents were asked to rate their impression of sup-
port for the FREMP by its various constituency groups.
This question describes how stakeholders think other
groups view the program and illustrates instances where
one group believes another may have undue influence.
There were several areas of significant difference (see
Table 2). Industry respondents believed that government
agencies gave the program a relatively high degree of
support, but environment and conservation group re-
spondents saw government support as being signifi-
cantly lower. The general view of all respondents was
that commercial fishing, forestry/manufacturing, and
other industries demonstrated a relatively low level of
support for the program. Environment and conserva-
tion group respondents believed that the fishing indus-
try’s level of support is significantly lower than their
Information Activities and Participation
by Proxy
The influence of information. Until recently, the
FREMP was most prolific in the realm of information
development, especially for water quality and waste man-
agement. Management plans for foreshore and water-
based activities were developed after 1990, and recre-
ation planning is ongoing. But changes in management
practice for habitat, water, and development approvals
had already begun well in advance of the emergence of
the overall Estuary Management Plan (Fraser River Estu-
ary Management Program, 1994). The agencies partici-
pating in the program were not responding to plans;
they were reacting to information. The initial interviews
revealed several ways that information development had
N
N
406 APA Journal Autumn 2000 Vol. 66, No. 4

THE PARADOX OF PARTICIPATION AND THE HIDDEN ROLE OF INFORMATION
TABLE 2. Summary statistics and analysis of variance for stakeholders’ impressions of support for the FREMP from other
constituencies.
Meana (No. of responses)
Ind. Env.
ANOVA
F value
P value
Significant differences
between groupsc
Survey question
Gov.b
Total
Support for the FREMP
What is your impression
of support for the FREMP
from this group?
Government agencies
2.69 (43) 1.94 (17) 3.52 (21) 2.75 (81)
4.10 (40) 4.07 (14) 5.22 (18) 4.37 (72)
4.26 (41) 4.05 (18) 4.16 (18) 4.19 (77)
3.30 (42) 2.05 (17) 4.95 (21) 3.47 (80)
5.62
0.01
Env. respondents differ
from Ind.
Commercial fishing industry
4.25
0.02
Env. respondents differ
from Ind.
Forestry, manufacturing,
and other industries
0.10
0.89
No significant differences
Environment and
conservation groups
15.38
0.00
Ind. respondents differ from
Env. and Gov. and Env.
differ from Ind. and Gov.
General public
Politicians
4.09 (42) 3.37 (16) 5.42 (21) 4.30 (79)
3.47 (42) 2.53 (15) 3.38 (21) 3.26 (78)
11.57
0.00
Env. respondents differ
from Gov. and Ind.
2.28
0.10
No significant differences
Notes:
a. Scale for group mean = very high 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very low
b. Gov. = government; Ind. = industry and business; Env. = environment and conservation groups
c. Where the ANOVA indicates a significant difference, a Scheffe test was used to identify which groups differed significantly; the confidence
level was 0.05.
affected the way agency participants viewed the state of
the river (see Table 3). When they were asked about pro-
gram impacts and outcomes, there were two common
response themes: “information and data”(first and sec-
ond items), and “integrated decision making”(third and
fourth items). Specifically, agency stakeholders stated
that for the first time data collection was being con-
ducted in an integrated and consistent manner and in a
way that made trends more readily observable. They also
suggested that ongoing information allowed them to ad-
just operating practices and tune implementation ap-
proaches to address emerging problems. In this context,
ongoing planning and resource management activities
reacted to information.
Interviews with agencies indicated that the pro-
gram’s information function does affect change among
government participants (see Table 3). Though the proc-
ess is not binding on agencies, the communicative ac-
tion embodied in discussion, agreeing on common prob-
lem interpretations, and developing common responses
to new information affected the policy result. As uncer-
tainty declined about the state of water quality, agency
actions gradually began to focus on those areas requiring
attention—especially water quality and habitat conser-
vation. Interview comments were particularly clear about
such influences.
The penultimate Estuary Management Plan (Fraser
River Estuary Management Program, 1994) contains ex-
amples where the program response to issues is ex-
plained by ongoing measures or activities already initi-
ated (for example, water and waste management,
recreation planning, and links to municipal plans). But
NGO stakeholders did not identify these as areas of pro-
gram success or initiative. Instead they wanted to see reg-
ulations and clear demonstrations of environmental im-
provement. And, as the results discussed above show,
there is a dichotomy (between government and indus-
try, and environment/conservation groups) in how
stakeholders view the program and its impact with re-
spect to participation. The dichotomy is also observed
N
N
APA Journal Autumn 2000 Vol. 66, No. 4 407

KEVIN S. HANNA
TABLE 3. Content analysis of themes in interviews relating to information and participation.
No. of respondents
Theme
mentioning theme (N=28)
The program has improved data collection (water quality and habitat).
The program has improved information sharing between agencies.
The FREMP has improved integrated planning/decision making.
The FREMP has improved consensus building among agencies.
Information/data gathered through the FREMP affects the way my agency acts.
The FREMP has made agencies more aware of multiple-use demands.
The public has influenced the program through planning workshops and consultation
on individual issues.
26
23
23
22
17
17
15
My interaction in the FREMP is affected by the participation the programs developed
by the agency I work for.
The FREMP has enhanced public participation in estuary management.
14
7
in how stakeholders rate program impacts and environ-
mental quality (Hanna, 1999). This is a problem for the
FREMP and the model it represents. Until 1997 there
was no standing committee that incorporated public
representation, and though data was readily available to
NGO interests, it was usually presented in a technical
form with little interpretation. The transfer of informa-
tion from the agency realm to the public realm was spo-
radic, and the form of communication was not wholly
accessible. The interviews and the survey showed that
NGO stakeholders believe that public reporting is inad-
equate, and that, indeed, this is one of the program’s key
weaknesses.
During interviews, NGO representatives said that
there should be a “state of the estuary report” that clearly
indicates what the status of water quality and habitat is
and what trends are being observed. The FREMP (1996)
subsequently provided a comprehensive report that in-
cludes nontechnical components summarizing envi-
ronmental quality.10 However, a question in any report-
ing process is “What is the purpose of the report?” If the
objective is to inform stakeholders about program ac-
tivities, environmental quality, or emerging issues, then
participation might be enhanced by giving participants
a better knowledge base for critique. But if the objective
is primarily to persuade stakeholders about the man-
agement approach, then the agency may be providing
only a token response to participation, and might be at-
tempting to co-opt nonagency interests.
marizing data showing a decline or stabilization in se-
lected contaminants. In this context the approach has
the appearance of persuasion. However, the report also
provides access to a collection of material that was pre-
viously inaccessible, not because the documents were not
distributed outside government, but because they often
lacked the interpretation and synthesis needed to make
them accessible to a broad audience. Though such re-
porting can enhance the influence of program-generated
information, it remains to be seen if better access to in-
formation will change nongovernmental stakeholders’
attitudes about how the estuary should be managed and
how uses should be accommodated. These elements can
be affected by information, but in order for that to hap-
pen the program may require a stronger participatory
emphasis, one that goes beyond enhanced reporting.
Participation by proxy. Measuring the impact of sec-
ondary participation is difficult. The influence is indi-
rect and participants may not initially recognize its in-
fluence and potential for affecting the decision-making
process. Influence may be exercised through indirect
venues that in turn influence, or are used by, agency
stakeholders. Though stakeholders see opportunities for
direct participation in the FREMP as being quite limited,
there is also a perception that indirect participation
venues influence the program. Government and NGO
stakeholders identified participation by proxy as a source
of influence. In interviews, agency respondents noted
that the participation programs operated by their orga-
nization affected the way that they acted through the
FREMP (see Table 3, 8th item). Though in interviews
NGO participants criticized the FREMP’s approach to
participation, they commented that they took part in
participation programs organized by the agencies.
The “state of the estuary report” synthesizes a col-
lection of technical narratives. The tone is largely matter-
of-fact, and few links are made between environmental
change and the specific activities of agencies. On one
level the report’s format and style suggest that the intent
is to ease concerns about environmental quality by sum-
N
N
408 APA Journal Autumn 2000 Vol. 66, No. 4

THE PARADOX OF PARTICIPATION AND THE HIDDEN ROLE OF INFORMATION
The role of indirect participation was also reinforced
tion and the less direct ways that participation influences
not only the process, but how it influences participants.
In practice, the axiom presented here is that despite a
program’s success in achieving its specific goals and ob-
jectives, dialogue is essential to communicating effi-
ciently and for ensuring that NGO stakeholders under-
stand in an explicit way how their concerns affect the
process.
In planning practice, the role and influence of infor-
mation and indirect participation cannot be underval-
ued. Consensus building among agencies and NGOs
also requires broad access to information. In this case
study, the role of NGO stakeholders is less direct;
though there is evidence that the views and demands of
NGOs have been transferred by proxy to the process—
not a form that is readily obvious nor necessarily pre-
ferred. Until the impacts of the program are better com-
municated to NGO stakeholders, support for the
integrated approach taken by the FREMP will remain
strongest among government agencies. The work sup-
ports the idea in planning theory that information has a
transformative function that can affect perceptions in
advance of a decision and impacts planning systems at
all levels and stages. Dichotomies in opinions of pro-
gram success and performance may also be linked to in-
formation access, and participation by proxy can be an
important source of influence in planning processes.
in the survey responses. There were 27 written comments
on the importance and influence of non-FREMP partic-
ipation programs (19 comments by agency stakeholders
and 8 by NGOs; the majority of these comments [20]
were appended to questions about participation oppor-
tunities). The image of information transfer is also em-
bedded within these comments. Seven government re-
spondents noted that not only was the water quality and
habitat information developed in the FREMP process
being used in their planning activities, it was also being
used to “inform” their participation programs. Environ-
mental data gathering facilitated through the FREMP
was used by agencies to explain why specific actions were
being taken. New applications of knowledge, such as
habitat coding, became the identifying characteristics of
some aspects of the planning process, not only for
agency stakeholders but also for NGOs. Indeed, in the
interviews all NGO participants mentioned the habitat
coding system used to guide development, and their
knowledge of its development and application was de-
rived not so much from interaction with the FREMP as
it was from interaction with other agency fora.
The interviews and survey also suggest that while the
role of government participation may be conspicuous,
the influence of NGO stakeholders is more complex, and
in this context NGO influence often seems to be exer-
cised by proxy. But there are real limitations to partici-
pation by proxy. Such influence may be filtered by agen-
cies (distorted purposively and/or altered by the process
of transfer). The FREMP’s participation approach is far
from perfect, but the influence of participation is not
wholly absent. Agency representatives are exposed to the
views and needs of NGOs though alternate venues, and
NGOs interested in the FREMP’s activities are accessing
these venues.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the JAPA referees and editors for their
suggestions and comments. Funding for this research was pro-
vided in part by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corpora-
tion, the Soil and Water Conservation Society through the
K. E. Grant Fellowship, and the University of Toronto.
NOTES
Conclusions: Implications for
Research and Practice
1. This depends on the growth scenario. Some predictions
are more conservative and see the region’s population
remaining below 2 million. Given the recent dramatic
decline in British Columbia’s economy, the commonly
accepted high-growth scenario should be reconsidered.
2. A provincial growth strategy has been initiated, but its im-
plementation is at a relatively early stage and may not
demonstrate a notable impact on the estuary region’s
growth rate or form for some time. See Hanna (1997) for
a critique and description of British Columbia’s Agricul-
tural Land Reserve.
3. The options suggested included the creation of a super
agency, a committee approach based on consensus in
decision making, and a lead agency framework where spe-
cific agencies lead decision making depending on the
issue. The FREMP combines elements of the last two
options.
The measurement of policy success often centres on
clear indicators such as the physical effect of a capital
project, the very explicit integration of NGOs into a
process, or obvious cause-effect criteria. But the influ-
ence of participation and information in planning is
more problematic. Each element has the capacity to
affect change in the way policy actors function within a
process, and often this change begins before the final de-
cision, or the final plan, is announced. Measuring the in-
fluence of participation by proxy is difficult, but it is an
important concept in the planning community and re-
quires more research. The measurement of planning in-
fluence requires attention to the subtle role of informa-
N
N
APA Journal Autumn 2000 Vol. 66, No. 4 409

KEVIN S. HANNA
4. This was emphasized in presurvey interviews.
5. Expressed in interviews with government agency stake-
holders.
6. The participant population is composed of those who
actively participate in the program.
7. The survey forms were tracked by type of job, agency, or-
ganization, and interests to create a profile of those who
had responded. Based on this profile, a second mailing was
sent only to the nonrespondents. A second mailing is a tool
used frequently in surveys to help address nonresponse
bias and increase a response rate (Burt & Barber, 1996).
8. Reporting in this context refers to the dissemination of
data and environmental quality measures to NGO venues.
9. The view by stakeholder groups that others have more in-
fluence, or too much influence, is sometimes interpreted
as evidence of appropriate agency action (for example, see
Culhane, 1981).
Fraser River Estuary Management Program. (1996). The Fraser
River Estuary, environmental quality report. Burnaby, BC:
Fraser River Estuary Management Program Secretariat.
Grima, A. P. (1985). Participatory rites: Integrating public in-
volvement in EIA. In J. Whitney & V. Maclaren (Eds.), En-
vironmental impact assessment: The Canadian experience (pp.
33–52). Toronto: University of Toronto Institute of Envi-
ronmental Studies.
Habermas, J. (1976). Legitimation crisis. London: Heinemann.
Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society.
Boston: Beacon Press.
Hanna, K. (1997). Regulation and land use conservation: A
case study of the British Columbia Agricultural Land Re-
serve. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 52(3), 166–170.
Hanna, K. (1999). Integrated resource management in the
Fraser River Estuary: Stakeholder perceptions of the state
of the estuary and policy influence. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, 54(2), 490–498.
10. Released after the survey was conducted.
Innes, J. (1988a). The power of data requirements. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 54, 275–278.
Innes, J. (1988b). Effects of data requirements on planning:
Case studies of environmental impact assessment and
community development block grants. Computers, Envi-
ronment, and Urban Systems, 12, 77–88.
Innes, J. (1998). Information in communicative planning. Jour-
nal of the American Planning Association, 64, 52–63.
King, C. S., Feltrey, K. M., & Susel, B. (1998). The question of
participation: Toward authentic public participation in
public administration. Public Administration Review, 57(4),
317–326.
Kweit, R. W., & Kwiet, M. G. (1980). Bureaucratic decision
making: Impediments to citizen participation. Polity, 12,
560–565.
Mitchell, B. (1986). The evolution of integrated resource man-
agement. In R. Lang (Ed.), Integrated approaches to resource
planning and management (pp. 13–26). Calgary: University
of Calgary Press.
Nelkin, D. (1982). Public participation in environmental plan-
ning. In A. J. Ahmad & F.G. Muller (Eds.), Integrated physi-
cal, socio-economic and environmental planning (pp. 71–92).
Dublin: Tycooly International, for the United Nations En-
vironment Programme.
Stiftel, B. (1983). Dialogue, does it increase participant knowl-
edgeability and attitude congruence? In G. A. Danke, M.
W. Garcia, & J. Delli Priscolli (Eds.), Public involvement and
social impact assessment (pp. 61–78). Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
REFERENCES
Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of
American Institute of Planners, 35, 216–224.
Burt, J. E., & Barber, G. M. (1996). Elementary statistics for geog-
raphers. New York: Guilford Press.
Child, M., & Armour, A. (1995). Integrated water resource
planning in Canada: Theoretical considerations and ob-
servations from practice. Canadian Water Resources Journal,
20(2), 115–126.
Culhane, P. (1981.) Public lands politics: Interest group influence on
the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Danke, G. A., Garcia, M. W., & Delli Priscolli, J. (Eds). (1983).
Public involvement and social impact assessment. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Dorcey, A. H. J. (1993). Sustainable development of the Fraser
River Estuary, Canada: Success amid failure. In Organisa-
tion for Economic Cooperation and Development, Coastal
zone management, selected case studies (pp. 25–52). Paris:
Author.
Draper, D. (1975). Environmental interest groups and institu-
tional arrangements in British Columbia water manage-
ment issues. In B. Mitchell (Ed.), Institutional arrangements
for water management: Canadian experiences (pp. 119–170).
Waterloo, ON: Waterloo University Press.
Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press.
Forester, J. (1993). Critical theory, public policy, and planning prac-
tice. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Fraser River Estuary Management Program. (1994). A living
working river, an estuary management plan for the Fraser River.
New Westminster, BC: Fraser River Estuary Management
Program Secretariat.
Walther, P. (1987). Against idealistic beliefs in the problem
solving capacities of integrated resource management. En-
vironmental Management, 11(4), 439–446.
Weiss, J., & Gruber, J. (1984). Deterring discrimination with
data. Policy Sciences, 17(1), 49–66.
N
N
410 APA Journal Autumn 2000 Vol. 66, No. 4