IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envira/v13y1981i9p1151-1161.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Family of Goals-Achievement Matrix Methods: Respectable Enough for Citizen Participation in Planning?

Author

Listed:
  • T Sager

    (Norwegian Institute of Urban and Regional Research—NTH, 7034 Trondheim—NTH, Norway)

Abstract

This article examines the problems of location and land rent within the framework of a linear and multisector production model in a radioconcentric space. In the case of a single product, the order of the differential fertility and location rent is examined. This order is neither given nor natural, but depends especially on the distribution. Formulating a spatial equilibrium with n goods where several qualities of soil exist raises a number of difficulties. When several techniques are used to manufacture a product then it is shown how different techniques are located in relation to the centre according to prices and the distribution variables. The manner in which a new technique is introduced and spreads in space is also examined. The predominant method used for evaluation in British structure planning compares strategies in terms of their achievement of particular criteria derived from community objectives. A recent survey shows that of the traditional evaluation techniques only modified goals-achievement matrix (GAM) methods are widely used in structure planning. This approach is also applied to local and project oriented planning processes where citizen participation seems even more necessary. The goals-achievement matrix was not presented by its originator—M Hill—as an entirely unambiguous method. It can be interpreted as a set of significantly diverging variants which are used here for three purposes: to show that economists' critique of GAM is too general, to clarify the connections between GAM and other well-known evaluation methods, and to discuss how GAM could best be structured for use in local participatory planning.

Suggested Citation

  • T Sager, 1981. "The Family of Goals-Achievement Matrix Methods: Respectable Enough for Citizen Participation in Planning?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 13(9), pages 1151-1161, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:13:y:1981:i:9:p:1151-1161
    DOI: 10.1068/a131151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/a131151
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/a131151?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. Arthur Maass, 1966. "Benefit-Cost Analysis: Its Relevance to Public Investment Decisions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 80(2), pages 208-226.
    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. G G Roy, 1974. "A Multiple Criteria Approach to Regional Planning Problems," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 6(3), pages 313-320, June.
    2. Forsythe, G.A., 1975. "An Assessment Of The Role Of Insurance And Structural Measures In Flood Mitigation Planning," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 43(02), pages 1-23, June.
    3. Robert L Harlow, 1973. "On the Decline and Possible Fall of PPBS," Public Finance Review, , vol. 1(2), pages 85-106, April.
    4. Joubert, Alison R. & Leiman, Anthony & de Klerk, Helen M. & Katua, Stephen & Aggenbach, J. Coenrad, 1997. "Fynbos (fine bush) vegetation and the supply of water: a comparison of multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 123-140, August.
    5. Pavelis, George A., 1972. "Planning Natural Resource Development: An Introductory Guide," Miscellaneous Publications 321887, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    6. Robert L. Harlow, 1973. "On the Decline and Possible Fall of Ppbs," Public Finance Review, , vol. 1(1), pages 85-105, January.
    7. Pavelis, George A., 1971. "The Benefit-Cost Ratio In Resource Development Planning," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 3(1), pages 1-6, December.
    8. Ronald C. Griffin, 2012. "The Origins and Ideals of Water Resource Economics in the United States," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 4(1), pages 353-377, August.
    9. Robert H. Haveman, 1977. "On Evaluating the Regional Impact of Public Policy," NBER Chapters, in: Explorations in Economic Research, Volume 4, number 3 (New Directions in Federal Economic Development Programs), pages 429-444, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. David Shapiro & Robert Shelton, 1977. "The application of an agency decisionmaking model," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 51-65, December.
    11. Castle, Emery N. & Kelso, Maurice M. & Stevens, Joe B. & Stoevener, Herbert H., 1981. "PART III. Natural Resource Economics, 1946-75," AAEA Monographs, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, number 337228, january.
    12. National Resource Economics Division, Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, 1979. "Natural Resource Capital in U.S. Agriculture: Irrigation, Drainage and Conservation Investments Since 1900," Economics Statistics and Cooperative Services (ESCS) Reports 329202, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

    More about this item

    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:envira:v:13:y:1981:i:9:p:1151-1161. 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.