IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v32y2009i4p351-359.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incorporating equity considerations in transport infrastructure evaluation: Current practice and a proposed methodology

Author

Listed:
  • Thomopoulos, N.
  • Grant-Muller, S.
  • Tight, M.R.

Abstract

Interest has re-emerged on the issue of how to incorporate equity considerations in the appraisal of transport projects and large road infrastructure projects in particular. This paper offers a way forward in addressing some of the theoretical and practical concerns that have presented difficulties to date in incorporating equity concerns in the appraisal of such projects. Initially an overview of current practice within transport regarding the appraisal of equity considerations in Europe is offered based on an extensive literature review. Acknowledging the value of a framework approach, research towards introducing a theoretical framework is then presented. The proposed framework is based on the well established MCA Analytic Hierarchy Process and is also contrasted with the use of a CBA based approach. The framework outlined here offers an additional support tool to decision makers who will be able to differentiate choices based on their views on specific equity principles and equity types. It also holds the potential to become a valuable tool for evaluators as a result of the option to assess predefined equity perspectives of decision makers against both the project objectives and the estimated project impacts. This framework may also be of further value to evaluators outside transport.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomopoulos, N. & Grant-Muller, S. & Tight, M.R., 2009. "Incorporating equity considerations in transport infrastructure evaluation: Current practice and a proposed methodology," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 351-359, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:32:y:2009:i:4:p:351-359
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149-7189(09)00057-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. S. M. Grant-Muller & P. MacKie & J. Nellthorp & A. Pearman, 2001. "Economic appraisal of European transport projects: The state-of-the-art revisited," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 237-261.
    2. Roger Vickerman, 2007. "Cost — Benefit Analysis and Large-Scale Infrastructure Projects: State of the Art and Challenges," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 34(4), pages 598-610, August.
    3. Bent Flyvbjerg, 2007. "Policy and Planning for Large-Infrastructure Projects: Problems, Causes, Cures," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 34(4), pages 578-597, August.
    4. Mackie, Peter & Preston, John, 1998. "Twenty-one sources of error and bias in transport project appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-7, January.
    5. Rietveld, Piet, 2006. "Pricing in transport; a multimodal perspective. An introduction," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 32, pages 1-4.
    6. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521009461 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Aschauer, David Alan, 1989. "Is public expenditure productive?," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 177-200, March.
    8. Maria Berrittella & A. Certa & M. Enea & P. Zito, 2007. "An Analytic Hierarchy Process for The Evaluation of Transport Policies to Reduce Climate Change Impacts," Working Papers 2007.12, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    9. Vickerman, Roger, 1995. "Location, accessibility and regional development: the appraisal of trans-European networks," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 225-234, October.
    10. Schweigert, Francis J., 2007. "The priority of justice: A framework approach to ethics in program evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 394-399, November.
    11. Hugo Priemus & Bent Flyvbjerg & Bert van Wee (ed.), 2008. "Decision-Making on Mega-Projects," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4112.
    12. Lopez, Humberto, 2008. "The social discount rate : estimates for nine Latin American countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4639, The World Bank.
    13. Bristow, A. L. & Nellthorp, J., 2000. "Transport project appraisal in the European Union," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 51-60, January.
    14. Berrittella, Maria & Certa, Antonella & Enea, Mario & Zito, Pietro, 2007. "An Analytic Hierarchy Process for The Evaluation of Transport Policies to Reduce Climate Change Impacts," Climate Change Modelling and Policy Working Papers 10264, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    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. Nikolaos Thomopoulos & Susan Grant-Muller, 2013. "Incorporating equity as part of the wider impacts in transport infrastructure assessment: an application of the SUMINI approach," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 315-345, February.
    2. Martijn Leijten, 2013. "Real-world decision-making on mega-projects: politics, bias and strategic behaviour," Chapters, in: Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 4, pages 57-82, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Dimitriou, Harry T. & Ward, E. John & Dean, Marco, 2016. "Presenting the case for the application of multi-criteria analysis to mega transport infrastructure project appraisal," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 7-20.
    4. Macharis, Cathy & Bernardini, Annalia, 2015. "Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 177-186.
    5. van Exel, Job & Rienstra, Sytze & Gommers, Michael & Pearman, Alan & Tsamboulas, Dimitrios, 2002. "EU involvement in TEN development: network effects and European value added," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 299-311, October.
    6. Nahmias–Biran, Bat-hen & Shiftan, Yoram, 2016. "Towards a more equitable distribution of resources: Using activity-based models and subjective well-being measures in transport project evaluation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 672-684.
    7. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2013. "Ranking the substantive problems in the Dutch Cost–Benefit Analysis practice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 241-255.
    8. Jonas Eliasson & Mattias Lundberg, 2011. "Do Cost--Benefit Analyses Influence Transport Investment Decisions? Experiences from the Swedish Transport Investment Plan 2010--21," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(1), pages 29-48, April.
    9. Holz-Rau, Christian & Scheiner, Joachim, 2011. "Safety and travel time in cost-benefit analysis: A sensitivity analysis for North Rhine-Westphalia," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 336-346, March.
    10. Maria Börjesson & Jonas Eliasson & Mattias Lundberg, 2014. "Is CBA Ranking of Transport Investments Robust?," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 48(2), pages 189-204, May.
    11. Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), 2013. "International Handbook on Mega-Projects," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14791.
    12. Michailidou, Alexandra V. & Vlachokostas, Christos & Moussiopoulos, Νicolas, 2016. "Interactions between climate change and the tourism sector: Multiple-criteria decision analysis to assess mitigation and adaptation options in tourism areas," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 1-12.
    13. Chantal C. Cantarelli & Bent Flyvbjerg, 2013. "Mega-projects’ cost performance and lock-in: problems and solutions," Chapters, in: Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 15, pages 333-355, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Nzotcha, Urbain & Kenfack, Joseph & Blanche Manjia, Marceline, 2019. "Integrated multi-criteria decision making methodology for pumped hydro-energy storage plant site selection from a sustainable development perspective with an application," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 930-947.
    15. Hosseinpur, Zahra & Menhaj, Mohammad Hossein & Kavoosi-Kalashami, Mohammad, 2016. "Assessment Improving and Organizing Mechanism of Water Users Cooperatives Using AHP Method in Esfarayen County, Iran," International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development (IJAMAD), Iranian Association of Agricultural Economics, vol. 6(3), September.
    16. Atif Ansar & Bent Flyvbjerg & Alexander Budzier & Daniel Lunn, 2016. "Does infrastructure investment lead to economic growth or economic fragility? Evidence from China," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 32(3), pages 360-390.
    17. Bert van Wee & Piet Rietveld, 2013. "CBA: ex ante evaluation of mega-projects," Chapters, in: Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 12, pages 269-290, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Vickerman, Roger, 2008. "Transit investment and economic development," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 107-115, January.
    19. Yin Germaschewski, 2016. "Getting help from abroad: The macroeconomics of foreign direct investment in infrastructure in low‐income countries," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(4), pages 1502-1535, November.
    20. Macharis, Cathy & De Witte, Astrid & Turcksin, Laurence, 2010. "The Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) application in the Flemish long-term decision making process on mobility and logistics," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 303-311, September.

    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:eee:epplan:v:32:y:2009:i:4:p:351-359. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    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.