IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v46y2019i3p534-550.html

Impact-based planning evaluation: Advancing normative criteria for policy analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Sina Shahab
  • J Peter Clinch
  • Eoin O’Neill

Abstract

Planning decisions have considerable impacts on both natural and built environments. The impacts of these decisions may remain for many decades and many are irreversible. In order to gain a better understanding of these long-standing impacts, planners require a systematic approach to evaluate the planning policy instruments utilised. The literature on planning evaluation shows that most studies have taken a conformance-based evaluation approach, where the success of a planning policy instrument is based on the degree of conformity between the policy outcomes and its intended objectives. While evaluating such criteria is necessary, it is hardly ever sufficient largely because of unintended effects. This paper proposes an impact-based approach to planning evaluation that incorporates all the impacts, intended and otherwise, that a planning policy instrument may bring about, irrespective of the initial objectives of the policy. Using a number of economic and planning theories, this paper argues that, in addition to conformance and performance, other normative evaluation criteria, such as, efficiency, equity, social and political acceptability, and institutional arrangements, should be included to emphasise the importance of planning decisions and their substantial impacts on quality of life, social justice, and sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Sina Shahab & J Peter Clinch & Eoin O’Neill, 2019. "Impact-based planning evaluation: Advancing normative criteria for policy analysis," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 46(3), pages 534-550, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:46:y:2019:i:3:p:534-550
    DOI: 10.1177/2399808317720446
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399808317720446
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2399808317720446?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nabli, Mustapha K. & Nugent, Jeffrey B., 1989. "The New Institutional Economics and its applicability to development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 17(9), pages 1333-1347, September.
    2. Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1985. "Information and Economic Analysis: A Perspective," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 95(380a), pages 21-41, Supplemen.
    3. Hoogerwerf, Andries, 1990. "Reconstructing policy theory," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 285-291, January.
    4. Samuels, Warren J, 1995. "The Present State of Institutional Economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 19(4), pages 569-590, August.
    5. Dave Guyadeen & Mark Seasons, 2016. "Plan Evaluation: Challenges and Directions for Future Research," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(2), pages 215-228, March.
    6. McCann, Laura & Colby, Bonnie & Easter, K. William & Kasterine, Alexander & Kuperan, K.V., 2005. "Transaction cost measurement for evaluating environmental policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 527-542, March.
    7. Carlisle Ford Runge & Robert J. Myers, 1985. "Shifting Foundations of Agricultural Policy Analysis: Welfare Economics When Risk Markets Are Incomplete," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 67(5), pages 1010-1016.
    8. Clinch, J Peter & Murphy, Anthony, 2001. "Modelling Winners and Losers in Contingent Valuation of Public Goods: Appropriate Welfare Measures and Econometric Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(470), pages 420-443, April.
    9. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    10. Davis, Lance & North, Douglass, 1970. "Institutional Change and American Economic Growth: A First Step Towards a Theory of Institutional Innovation," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 131-149, March.
    11. Coggan, Anthea & Whitten, Stuart M. & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Influences of transaction costs in environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1777-1784, July.
    12. R. G. Lipsey & Kelvin Lancaster, 1956. "The General Theory of Second Best," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 24(1), pages 11-32.
    13. Sabatier, Paul A., 1986. "Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: a Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 21-48, January.
    14. Johansson,Per-Olov, 1991. "An Introduction to Modern Welfare Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521356954, Enero-Abr.
    15. Richard E. Just, 1988. "Making Economic Welfare Analysis Useful in the Policy Process: Implications of the Public Choice Literature," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(2), pages 448-453.
    16. S. Jaensirisak & M. Wardman & A. D. May, 2005. "Explaining Variations in Public Acceptability of Road Pricing Schemes," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 39(2), pages 127-154, May.
    17. Carlos Balsas, 2012. "What about Plan Evaluation? Integrating Evaluation in Urban Planning Studio's Pedagogy," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(4), pages 475-494.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bhardwaj, Chandan & Axsen, Jonn & Kern, Florian & McCollum, David, 2020. "Why have multiple climate policies for light-duty vehicles? Policy mix rationales, interactions and research gaps," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 309-326.
    2. Kherallah, Mylene & Kirsten, Johann F, 2002. "The New Institutional Economics: Applications For Agricultural Policy Research In Developing Countries," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 41(2).
    3. Lapeyre, Renaud & Froger, Géraldine & Hrabanski, Marie, 2015. "Biodiversity offsets as market-based instruments for ecosystem services? From discourses to practices," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 125-133.
    4. Phan, Thu-Ha Dang & Brouwer, Roy & Davidson, Marc David, 2017. "A Global Survey and Review of the Determinants of Transaction Costs of Forestry Carbon Projects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 1-10.
    5. Lee, Gi-Eu & Loveridge, Scott & Joshi, Satish, 2017. "Local acceptance and heterogeneous externalities of biorefineries," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 328-336.
    6. Zhang, Wenjia & Liu, Chengcheng & Zhang, Hongmou, 2023. "Public acceptance of congestion pricing policies in Beijing: The roles of neighborhood built environment and air pollution perception," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 106-120.
    7. Bellanger, Manuel & Fonner, Robert & Holland, Daniel S. & Libecap, Gary D. & Lipton, Douglas W. & Scemama, Pierre & Speir, Cameron & Thébaud, Olivier, 2021. "Cross-sectoral externalities related to natural resources and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    8. Valentová, Michaela & Horák, Martin & Dvořáček, Lukáš, 2020. "Why transaction costs do not decrease over time? A case study of energy efficiency programmes in Czechia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    9. Eory, Vera, "undated". "Evaluating the use of marginal abatement cost curves applied to greenhouse gas abatement in agriculture," Working Papers 199777, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.
    10. Coggan, Anthea & Buitelaar, Edwin & Whitten, Stuart & Bennett, Jeff, 2013. "Factors that influence transaction costs in development offsets: Who bears what and why?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 222-231.
    11. Valentová, Michaela & Lízal, Lubomír & Knápek, Jaroslav, 2018. "Designing energy efficiency subsidy programmes: The factors of transaction costs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 382-391.
    12. J. Peter Clinch & Eoin O'Neill, 2010. "Designing Development Planning Charges: Settlement Patterns, Cost Recovery and Public Facilities," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 47(10), pages 2149-2171, September.
    13. Aasen, Marianne & Christensen, Ingrid, 2024. "Lost in transaction?: An institutional analysis of households’ transaction costs from demand-side grid management," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    14. Moss, Jonathan & Cacho, Oscar J., 2014. "Farm-scale analysis of the potential uptake of carbon offset activities," 2014 Conference, August 28-29, 2014, Nelson, New Zealand 187402, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    15. Nantongo, Mary & Vatn, Arild, 2019. "Estimating Transaction Costs of REDD+," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 1-11.
    16. Fan, Shengyue & Yang, Jinfei & Liu, Wenwen & Wang, He, 2019. "Institutional Credibility Measurement Based on Structure of Transaction Costs: A Case Study of Ongniud Banner in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 212-225.
    17. Pannell, David J. & Roberts, Anna M. & Park, Geoff & Alexander, Jennifer, 2013. "Improving environmental decisions: A transaction-costs story," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 244-252.
    18. Shahab, Sina & Clinch, J. Peter & O’Neill, Eoin, 2018. "Accounting for transaction costs in planning policy evaluation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 263-272.
    19. Shahab, Sina & Clinch, J. Peter & O'Neill, Eoin, 2019. "An Analysis of the Factors Influencing Transaction Costs in Transferable Development Rights Programmes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 409-419.
    20. Timothy P. Roth, 2014. "Economists and the State," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15078.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:46:y:2019:i:3:p:534-550. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.