EM 4103 Urban Planning II Lecture 10 Plan

EM 4103: Urban Planning II Lecture 10: Plan Evaluation Process I

EVALUATION IN PLANNING § At some point in the planning process, alternative courses of action or strategies will have to be evaluated. § Evaluation is the process of taking different possible courses of action, setting them side by side and drawing a conclusion as to their respective merits Ø minimise subjective judgement Ø aid to decision-making

1. Define the Problem 2. Identify the Objectives Rational Comprehensive Model 3. Specify Performance Measures that appropriately reflect the Objectives 4. Identify alternative courses of action 5. Analyse the alternatives to understand the consequences of each 6. Compare the consequences and select an alternative 7. Present the results and conclusions 8. Implement the alternative selected and evaluate the degree of success in achieving the objectives

Problems of Enumeration • In land use planning, the evaluation of effects could only take place within the framework of specified land use planning objectives • This is a major departure from traditional guidelines of welfare economics – Pareto optimum (no one should be made worse off) – Kaldor Hicks optimum (that the sum of those made better off should exceed the sum of those made worse off) • Social preferences – as expressed in behavior and illuminated by social surveys

§ There is a range of techniques that can be used, ranging from cost effectiveness analysis to cost minimisation techniques § One of the most widely used technique is cost-benefit analysis

EVALUATION IN PLANNING … continued § Cost-effectiveness methods compare the relative benefits of schemes which are roughly equal in costs. § Cost-minimisation techniques are the reverse whereby one has to choose the least-cost alternatives which have roughly equal benefits.

“ Cost–benefit analysis is a practical way of assessing the desirability of projects, where it is important to take a long view (in the sense of looking at repercussions in the further, as well as the nearer, future) and a wide view (in the sense of allowing for side effects of many kinds on many persons, industries, regions, etc), i. e. it implies the enumeration and evaluation of all the relevant costs and benefits”

For cost-benefit analysis in general, there are five basic stages involved: § Project definition § Identification and enumeration of costs and benefits Ø Dealing with intangibles (balancing factor) § Evaluation of costs and benefits § Discounting § Presentation of results

In land use planning, the most widely used adaptations of costbenefit analysis are the: • Planning Balance Sheet (PBS) • Goals Achievement Matrix (GAM) – comparison with another – Comparison with do-nothing

PLANNING BALANCE SHEET (PBS) § Lichfield’s PBS attempts to indicate the extent of all community impacts of proposals whether in monetary units or not. § In the absence of monetary measures, physical units of measurement are employed or costs and benefits are included qualitatively.

§ The method displays the distribution of impacts between the different sectors of the community, classified as producers/operators and consumers. § Results are laid out in a balance sheet with the decision-makers left to weigh the relative importance of the costs and the benefits shown.

• Thus the PBS systematically record in a set of accounts all the costs and benefits to all affected parties (social accounts)

THE PLANNING BALANCE SHEET

GOALS ACHIEVEMENT MATRIX (GAM) § In GAM, developed by Hill, costs and benefits are arranged according to community goals as well as groups affected. § The main difference from the PBS is that goals and group interests are explicitly weighted to reflect their relative importance to the community.

GOALS ACHIEVEMENT MATRIX (GAM) … continued § The first stage is to focus on the goals for the plan in question; the relative value to be attached to each goal must be established. § Then each alternative course of action must be examined to see how far it satisfies each goal. § Thus the overall performance of each alternative in relation to all the goals can be seen.

Conserve buildings of architectural merits Reduce Noise and fumes Provide dwellings to full Parker Morris stand Avoid a Housing loss Canalise through traffic Maintain easy access for deliveries, etc Provide pedestrian ways for safe and easy mo Restrict parking to residents and short term Keep local industries that employ many resid Maintain viability of local shops, dependent o trade Extend cramped sites for local schools Minimise local authroity financial involvemen Avoid forcing residents to move out of the are Goal Compatibility/ Conflict Matrix

Goal Achievement Matrix (after Hill)

Goal Achievement Matrix Scoring Plan A’s Score = +4 -3=1 Plan B’s Score = -4 -2=-6 Therefore Plan A is preferable to Plan B

Types of Measurement User Objectives • Increase of accessibility: average travel time ($) • Accident reduction: no. of fatalities and injuries, injury costs and property damage ($) • Comfort of travel – probability of standing in transit vehicle – probability of traveling on congested route

Community Objectives • Economic efficiency ($) • Regional economic growth ($) • Income distribution ($) • Fiscal efficiency ($) • Reduction of air pollution (pollutants per unit volume of air)