1. September 2005Urban Planning Carleton University 1 Evaluation of Urban Plans _________________________

2. September 2005Urban Planning Carleton University 2 Evaluation of Urban Plans Evaluation is the process of assessing the economic, fiscal, social, and environmental implications of alternative urban development plans in order to determine how well each achieves the objectives established at the outset.

3. September 2005Urban Planning Carleton University 3 Evaluation of Urban Plans Evaluation facilitates decision-making by appraising the merits (positive effects) and demerits (negative impacts) of alternative plans in terms of evaluation criteria. In general, the operating value system is that of the "community" as a whole. In some situations, impact-incidence analyses are carried for special interest groups.

4. September 2005Urban Planning Carleton University 4 Features of Urban Plans and Evaluation Methods A variety of evaluation methods are available. Most of these were developed for the evaluation of projects (e.g., highways, rapid transit, water works, etc.) which feature economic as well as other factors that can be quantified. In the case of urban development plans, the information relates to strategic directions and sketch plans. The evaluation criteria include items that cannot be quantified in objective terms (e.g., quality of life, aesthetics, etc.).

5. September 2005Urban Planning Carleton University 5 Features of Urban Plans and Evaluation Methods – cont’d A committee (e.g., the City Council) has the responsibility to evaluate the plan alternatives at a number of stages of plan development. Professional staff play a role in distilling and presenting the required information, but they normally do not exercise value judgments.

6. September 2005Urban Planning Carleton University 6 Features of Urban Plans and Evaluation Methods – cont’d It should be noted that elected officials may not use any formal evaluation method. Instead, on the basis of the information presented, they may vote on plan selection. Two method are described here: the Rank Ordering Method and the Effectiveness Method.

7. September 2005Urban Planning Carleton University 7 Rank Ordering Technique The case of one decision-maker is presented. In case of a committee, the results of individual evaluations can be studied and the final result can be obtained. n alternatives Method: Comparison on the basis of pairs -- "alternative i is superior to alternative j".

8. September 2005Urban Planning Carleton University 8 Rank Ordering Technique Rules for consistency: (1) An alternative cannot be superior to itself. (2) If i is superior is j, then j cannot be superior to i. (3) If i is superior to j and j is superior to k, then i is superior to k.

9. September 2005Urban Planning Carleton University 9 Example 4 options are to be evaluated. Assign 1 in cell (i,j) if the answer to the question "option I is superior to option j" was affirmative and 0 otherwise. The following trial evaluation information became available as a result of evaluation. j i A B C D ABCDABCD 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 As expected, the diagonal elements are all 0.

10. September 2005Urban Planning Carleton University 10 Rank Ordering Example Graphical display of rank ordering: In the diagram, each arrow is directed from the inferior to the superior option. C A B D C B A D

11. September 2005Urban Planning Carleton University 11 Effectiveness Evaluation Method Effectiveness is the degree to which the performance of an alternative attains its stated objectives/criteria. This method requires: –A list of criteria –An indication whether criteria are to weighted or not. –Number of the members of the evaluation committee. –Establishing criteria weights. –Establishment of the effectiveness of each alternative with respect to each criterion. –Weighting of the effectiveness estimates. –Finding the most effective alternative.

12. September 2005Urban Planning Carleton University 12 Effectiveness Example Assume that three members of a committee (M1, M2, M3) assigned the following weights (on a scale of 1 to 10) to five criteria. Criteria Weighting wj Criteria Weights assigned (on a scale of 1 to 10) ------------------------------------ M1 M2 M3 Sum Normalized Weights Cr 1 8 6 5 19 19/75 = 0.25 Cr 2 7 4 9 20 20/75= 0.27 Cr 3 3 2 1 6 0.08 Cr 4 5 7 3 15 0.20 Cr 5 6 4 5 15 0.20 Total 75 1.00

13. September 2005Urban Planning Carleton University 13 Effectiveness Example – cont’d Ei = Sum for all j (wj ei,j) Where wj is criterion weight ei,j effectiveness of Plan i with respect to criterion j (assigned by technical staff) The higher the weighted effectiveness, the better.

14. September 2005Urban Planning Carleton University 14 Effectiveness Example – cont’d A, B, and C are plans to be evaluated Plan Effectiveness: ei,j & Ei Criteria Unweighted Effectiveness ------------------------------------ A B C Weighted Effectiveness --------------------------------- A B C Cr 1 80 70 60 20.0 17.5 15.0 Cr 2 50 80 30 13.5 21.6 8.1 Cr 3 70 20 50 5.6 1.6 4.0 Cr 4 30 40 20 6.0 8.0 4.0 Cr 5 50 60 70 10.0 12.0 14.0 Total 55.1 60.7* 45.1

15. September 2005Urban Planning Carleton University 15 Example – cont’d Since Plan B has the highest weighted effectiveness, Plan B is the choice. Note: e ij for Plan A & cr1 = 80 w j for cr 1 = 0.25 w j x e jj = 0.25 x 80 = 20

16. September 2005Urban Planning Carleton University 16 Effectiveness Example 2 Three plans (A,B, and C) have to be evaluated with respect to three criteria. The following criteria weights are to be assigned. Criterion 1: 2 Criterion 2: 1 Criterion 3: 4 Plan Effectiveness: ei,j & Ei Criteria Unweighted Effectiveness ------------------------------------ A B C Weighted Effectiveness --------------------------------- A B C Cr 1 40 85 90 80 170 180 Cr 2 70 40 90 Cr 3 50 80 40 200 320 160 Total 350 530* 430 Plan B is the choice.