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

minimise subjective judgement aid to decision-making

5. Analyse the alternatives to understand the consequences of each

6. Compare the consequences and select an alternative

7. Present the results and conclusions

1. Define the Problem

2. Identify the Objectives

3. Specify Performance Measures that appropriately reflect the Objectives

4. Identify alternative courses of action

8. Implement the alternative selected and evaluate the degree of success in achieving the objectives

Rational ComprehensiveModel

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 Dealing with intangibles (balancing factor)

Evaluation of costs and benefits Discounting Presentation of results

In land use planning, the most widely used adaptations of cost-benefit 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

Producers Capital Annual Capital Annual Capital Annual Capital AnnualX $a $b $d $b $cY i1 i2 i3 i4Z M1 M2 M3 M4

ConsumersX1 $e $7 $g $hY1 i5 i6 i7z1 M1 M2 M2 M4

Plan A Plan BBenefits Costs Benefits Costs

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.

Con

serv

e b

uil

din

gs o

f ar

chit

ectu

ral m

erit

sR

edu

ce N

oise

an

d f

um

esP

rovi

de

dw

elli

ngs

to

full

Par

ker

Mor

ris

stan

dar

ds

Avo

id a

Hou

sin

g lo

ssC

anal

ise

thro

ugh

tra

ffic

Mai

nta

in e

asy

acce

ss f

or d

eliv

erie

s, e

tcP

rovi

de

ped

estr

ian

way

s fo

r sa

fe a

nd

eas

y m

ovem

ent

Res

tric

t p

ark

ing

to r

esid

ents

an

d s

hor

t te

rmK

eep

loca

l in

du

stri

es t

hat

em

plo

y m

any

resi

den

tsM

ain

tain

via

bil

ity

of lo

cal s

hop

s, d

epen

den

t on

ou

tsid

e tr

ade

Ext

end

cra

mp

ed s

ites

for

loca

l sch

ools

Min

imis

e lo

cal a

uth

roit

y fi

nan

cial

invo

lvem

ent

in s

chem

eA

void

for

cin

g re

sid

ents

to

mov

e ou

t of

th

e ar

ea

Conserve buildings of architectural meritReduce noise and fumesProvide dwellings to full Parker Morris standardsAvoid a housing lossCanalise through trafficMaintain easy access to deliveries, etcProvide pedestrain ways for easy and safe movementRestrict parking to residents and short termKeep local industries that employ many residentsMaintain viability of local shops, dependent on outside tradeExtend cramped sites for local schoolsMinimise local authority financial involvement in schemeAvoid forcing residents to move out of area

Goal Compatibility/Conflict Matrix

Goal Achievement Matrix(after Hill)

GoalDescription:RelativeWeight

IncidenceRelative Costs Benefits Relative Costs Benefits Relative Costs Benefits Relative Costs BenefitsWeight Weight Weight Weight

Group z 1 A D 5 E 1 N 1 Q RGroup y 3 H 4 R 2 2 S TGroup x 1 L J 3 S 3 M 1 V WGroup w 2 1 4 2Group v 1 K T U 5 P 1

Sum Sum Sum Sum

a2

d4

b3

c5

Goal Achievement Matrix - Scoring

Group GroupWeight Plan A Plan B Weight Plan A Plan B

Group z 3 +6 -6 3 -3 0Group y 1 -2 +2 2 0 -2

+4 -4 -3 -2

Goal a:Weight = 2 Goal b: Weight = 1

Plan A’s Score = +4-3=1Plan B’s Score = -4-2=-6Therefore 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)