Comprehensive Impact Assessment in Planning Education and a Course Syllabus

Abstract

Impact assessment skills are used in a variety of ways in planning practice, reflecting expansion in society's concern with externalities associated with growth and development, improved methods for predicting impacts, and wider acceptance of impact mitigation as a goal of growth management. This article reviews the status of impact assessment in planning pedagogy and describes a new way of teaching this subject. At present, few planning education programs address development impact assessment in a comprehensive way. Instead, most curricula either have courses dedicated to teaching methods related to a few categories of impacts, such as environmental or fiscal, or treat impact assessment in passing in courses that cover broader subjects. Here I argue that a comprehensive impact assessment course can have several advantages, and I present the design of such a course and report on initial classroom experience with it. The course combines instruction on causal relationships between characteristics of the built environ ment and a variety of impacts with the use of computer-based models to give students first- hand experience with predicting impacts and testing alternative mitigation strategies.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alterman, R. 1988. Exactions American style: The context for evaluation . In Private Supply of Public Services: Evaluation of Real Estate Exactions, Linkage, and Alternative Land Policies, ed. R. Alterman. New York: New York University Press.

Bassett, E.M. 1938. The Master Plan. New York: Russell Sage.

Burchell, R.W. , and D. Listokin. 1975. The Environmental Impact Handbook . New Brunswick, New Jersey. Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.

Burchell, R.W. , and D. Listokin. 1978 The Fiscal Impact Assessment Handbook Estimating Local Costs and Revenues of Land Development. New Brunswick, New Jersey: The Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.

Canter, L.W. , S.F. Atkinson , and F.L. Leistritz 1985. Impact of Growth A Guidefor Socio-Economic Impact Assessment and Planning. Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers, Inc.

Chapin, F.S. , Jr 1965. Urban Land Use Planning Second edition. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Chapin, F.S. , Jr., and E.J. Kaiser . 1979. Urban Land Use Planning . Third edition. Urbana University of Illinois Press.

Christensen, K. 1976 Social Impacts of Land Development An Initial Approach for Estimating Impacts of Neighborhood Usages and Perceptions. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

Contant, C.K. , and D.J. Forkenbrock . 1986 Planning methods. An analysis of supply and demand. Journal of Planning Education and Research 6 10-21

10.

Dickert, T. G , and K. R. Domney , eds. 1974. Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines and Commentary. Berkeley: University of California Press.

11.

Fisterbusch, K. , L. G. Llewellyn , and C. P. World , eds. 1983. Social Impact Assessment Methods. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications.

12.

Goodman, W.I. , and E.C. Freund. 1968. Principles and Practice of Urban Planning . Washington, D.C.: International City Managers' Association.

13.

Harris, B. 1991. Planning technologies and planning theories. Paper presented at the Joint Conference of the Association of European Schools of Planning and The Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Oxford, England, July.

14.

Juergensmeyer, J.C. 1988. The development of regulatory impact fees. The legal issues . In Development Impact Fees Policy, Rationale, Practice, Theory and Issues, ed A. C. Nelson. Chicago, Illinois: APA Press .

15.

Kaiser, E.J. , E. Elfers , S. Cohn , P.A. Reichert , M.M. Hufschmidt , and R.E. Stanland , Jr. 1974. Promoting Environmental Quality through Urban Planning and Controls. EPA-600/5-73-015. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government Printing Office.

16.

Kent, T.J. , Jr. 1964. The Urban General Plan. San Francisco, California: Chandler Publishing Company .

17.

Kmiec, D.N. 1986. Zoning and Planning Deskbook. New York : Clark Boardman.

18.

Krueckeberg, D.A. 1979 Practical demand for analytic methods. In Planning Theory in the 1980s, eds. R. W. Burchell and G. Sternlieb. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.

19.

Leistritz, F.L. , and S.H. Murdock. 1981. The Socioeconomic Impact of Resource Development: Methods forAssessment. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

20.

McHarg, I.L. 1969. Design with Nature. Philadelphia , Pennsylvania: Natural History Press.

21.

Muller, T. 1976. Ecomonic Impacts of Land Development. Employment, Housing and Property Values Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute

22.

Ortolano, L. 1984. Environmental Planning and Decision Making. New York: John Wiley.

23.

Pivo, G. 1989. The arrival of performance-based growth management . Urban Land November:30-33.

24.

Porter, D. 1988. Flexible Zoning How It Works. Washington , D C. The Urban Land Institute.

25.

Prakash, V , and R. Hodlewsky , eds. 1990. Guide to Graduate Education in Urban and Regional Planning. Seventh edition. Chicago, Illinois: Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning

26.

Runyan, D. 1977. Tools for community-managed impact assessment. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 43:125-135.

27.

Schaenman, P.S. 1976. Using an Impact Measurement System to Evaluate Land Development . Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute .

28.

Snyder, T.P. , and M.A. Stegman. 1986. Paying for Growth. Using Development Impact Fees to Finance Inftastructure. Washington, D.C. : The Urban Land Institute.

29.

So, F. S. , I Stollman, F. Beal , and D. S. Arnold , eds. 1979. The Practice of Local Government Planning. Washington, D.C.: International City Management Association .

30.

Stroud, N. 1988. Legal considerations of development impact fees . Journal of the American Planning Association 54:29-37.

31.

Westman, W.E. 1985. Ecology, ImpactAssessment and Environmental Planning . New York. John Wiley.