Alternative dispute resolution and the protection of natural areas in Ontario, Canada

In this paper we ask, Can alternative dispute resolution (ADR) settle land use disputes between developers and interest groups and still produce "envi ronmentally-sound" decisions? We selected six Canadian environmental mediat ion/negotiation cases in Ontario, where proposed residential developments w ere perceived to threaten natural areas, and interviewed proponents, interv enors and consultants after ADR resolution. We measured success in protecti ng ecological integrity at each site through comparison with a hypothetical "perfect" case. Process and outcome criteria tested how each agreement had mitigated damage and maintained or enhanced ecological integrity. Five of six cases successfully met an arbitrary minimum of 50% of both process and outcome criteria. Cases involving the Ontario provincial government were mo re successful than those with private developers, and environmental groups relying on disinterested environmental principle were more successful than residents' associations that were hampered by others' perceptions of "Not i n My Backyard" (NIMBY) syndrome. Participation by parties hostile to or unf amiliar with ADR hampered the process, and mediators were not perceived as critical to success. Thus, whether parties can solve environmental problems with ADR depends on their perspectives on environmental disputes, and stak eholders must share information openly and indicate their desire for consen sus-based decisions. Finally, stakeholders must have access to current scie ntific information. Among its limitations, ADR is not guaranteed to resolve a dispute, nor can it succeed without voluntary participation by all parti es. Third, ADR is effective only when all stakeholders feel that negotiatio n is useful. Finally, ADR is a reactionary, piecemeal process, and is there fore inefficient in protecting natural areas in a regional context. (C) 200 1 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.