Measuring participation: Case studies on village land use planning in northern Lao PDR Guillaume Lestrelin a, * , Jeremy Bourgoin a, b , Bounthanom Bouahom c , Jean-Christophe Castella a, d a Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Vientiane, Laos b University of Queensland (UQ), Brisbane, Australia c National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI), Vientiane, Laos d Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), Vientiane, Laos Keywords: Land use planning Participation Sustainable development Case studies Lao PDR abstract In the early 1990s, the Lao government launched a nationwide Land Use Planning and Land Allocation programme in a bid to foster socio-economic development while protecting the environment. However, the programme has long been perceived as having negative impacts on rural livelihoods. A central criticism was that limited local participation results in unsustainable land use plans; consequently, the government introduced significant changes into the process to enhance participation. This paper examines the extent to which the evolution of Laos’ village land use planning has resulted in increased local participation and improved livelihoods. Local participation was assessed quantitatively in six study villages, in combination with more qualitative surveys on planning practices and influences on liveli- hoods and land uses. The analysis reveals that local participation increased only slightly from early planning initiatives until pilot implementation of the revised programme, known as Participatory Land Use Planning. It also shows that (participation in) planning had very limited influence on local land use patterns. Drawing on these findings, the paper explores ways to better translate plans into concrete actions and to effect tangible change in local practices. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction “Can one really imagine that we can look ahead (not just a few years, but decades and longer) and successfully anticipate potential threats to the developmental process, and then collectively choose which futures we prefer, and then so engi- neer our societies as to realize the preferred visions?” (Meadowcroft, 1997: 183). A primary objective of land use planning (LUP) is the establish- ment of sustainable development. As such, LUP has triggered debates on social and environmental values and on the need for participatory processes to address individual differences in these values (Hillier, 1999; Owens, 1994; Rydin, 1995). As the United Nations’ Rio Declaration on Environment and Development illus- trates, enhanced “public participation in decision-making” is widely considered a “fundamental prerequisite for the achievement of sustainable development” (UNCED, 1992: 23.2). Arguments in favour of broader participation are generally both instrumental and value-based (Macnaghten & Jacobs, 1997; Meadowcroft, 2004). On the one hand, increased public involvement in decision-making is expected to generate important functional gains (e.g. “better” and more legitimate decisions, wider support and facilitated imple- mentation). On the other hand, when associated with notions of equity and the right to self-determination, broader participation is viewed as improving opportunities for individuals to fulfil their basic needs and aspirations, hence leading to a more sustainable development process. Given these intentions and expectations, the notion of planning for sustainable development raises important questions. Scholars such as Rydin (1995) and Meadowcroft (2004) point to a crucial need to consider ways to actually enhance participation. Indeed, as moving from positive intentions to the actual achievement of participation is not straightforward, appropriately designed mechanisms (involving, for example, information dissemination, empowerment, mediation and/or collaboration) are required to enhance public involvement in decision-making and plan implementation. Davies (2001) moves beyond the procedural aspects of participation to query the actual products of participation: Does enhanced public participation in planning necessarily produce greater social and environmental * Corresponding author. IRD-CIFOR, PO Box 5992, Vientiane, Laos. Tel.: þ856 20 55939443; fax: þ856 21 2412993. E-mail addresses: g.lestrelin@gmail.com (G. Lestrelin), j.bourgoin1@uq.edu.au (J. Bourgoin), bounthanom.b@gmail.com (B. Bouahom), j.castella@ird.fr (J.-C. Castella). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Applied Geography journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apgeog 0143-6228/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.01.003 Applied Geography 31 (2011) 950e958