Plan Effectiveness
Land use plans are made in part to improve development outcomes. Whether plans are effective in doing so is illusive because of counter-factual complications. Dr. Nelson has helped pioneer the field of measuring the effectiveness of land use plans by showing plans can achieve their intended objectives of mitigating impacts of natural hazards such as seismic events. He has also pioneered metrics to evaluate comprehensive plan outcomes with respect to several planning objectives showing that plans can affect desired outcomes.
Do plans matter? That is, can long-range comprehensive plans actually affect the desired outcomes? They can but only when plans have clear, measurable objectives and are implemented by regulatory tools designed to meet those objectives. This finding was confirmed when Dr. Nelson and his colleagues discovered the relationship between the factual basis of local plans and policies in mitigating damage associated with natural disasters, such as earthquakes and flooding.
In other work, Dr. Nelson has demonstrated that implementing plans based on factually-grounded projections of development needs is effective at reducing financial risk associated with overbuilding. In a series of studies based on Oregon’s statewide land-use planning process, Dr. Nelson and colleagues demonstrated that plans with factual bases, clear objectives, measurable benchmarks, and rigorous implementation can achieve desired outcomes in preserving open spaces while also meeting urban development needs. As global climate change becomes an leading planning challenge, state and local governments may need to elevate plan quality and implementation rigor to mitigate potentially adverse outcomes.
Raymond J. Burby, Arthur C. Nelson and Thomas W. Sanchez. 2006. The Problems of Containment and the Promise of Planning. In Eugenie L. Birch and Susan M. Wachter, eds., Rebuilding Urban Places After Disaster, University of Pennsylvania Press (Philadelphia), pp 47-65.
Arthur C. Nelson and Steven P. French. 2002. "Plan Quality and Mitigating Damage From Natural Disasters: Case Study of the Northridge Earthquake With Planning Policy Considerations. Journal of the American Planning Association. 68(2):194-207.
Richard B. Peiser and Arthur C. Nelson. 1997. "Using Master Planning Expert Panels to Achieve Planning Objectives." Journal of the American Planning Association 63(4): 439-453.
Arthur C. Nelson. 1995. "Growth Management and the Savings-and-Loan Bailout." Urban Lawyer 27(1): 71-85.
Terry Moore and Arthur C. Nelson. 1994. Lessons for Effective Urban-Containment and Resource-Land- Preservation." Journal of Urban Planning and Development 120(4): 157-173.
Arthur C. Nelson and Terry Moore. 1993. "Assessing Urban Growth Management." Land Use Policy 10(3): 293-302.
Arthur C. Nelson and Terry Moore. 1993. "Case Study of the Effectiveness of Coastal Growth Management in a Growth Management State." Coastal Management 197-208.
Gerrit J. Knaap and Arthur C. Nelson. 1993. The Regulated Landscape: Lessons of Statewide Planning From Oregon. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Arthur C. Nelson. 1992. "Elements of Effective State Land-Use Planning Policy." Journal of Urban Planning and Development 118(3): 97-105.
Raymond J. Burby and Arthur C. Nelson. 1991. "Local Government and Public Adaptation to Sea-Level Rise." Journal of Urban Planning and Development 117(4): 140-153.
Gerrit Knaap and Arthur C. Nelson. 1988. "The Effects of Regional Land Use Controls in Oregon: A Theoretical and Empirical Review." The Review of Regional Studies 18(2): 37-46.