IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v156y2022icp192-205.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When monetarisation and ranking are not appropriate. A novel stakeholder-based appraisal method

Author

Listed:
  • te Boveldt, Geert
  • Keseru, Imre
  • Macharis, Cathy

Abstract

Although there is general consensus on the necessity of evaluation for decision support in major transport projects, there is no method that is universally accepted. Multi-criteria analysis (MCA) is often suggested as the alternative for the dominant but much-criticised (social) cost benefit analysis (CBA), especially in complex multi-stakeholder projects. The paper argues that especially in this type of projects the applicability of conventional MCA techniques is limited because they require the project to be structured as a ranking-choice problem with multiple well-defined mutually exclusive decision alternatives. This often does not suit the planning question in the strategic early project phase, which is characterised by uncertainties relating to design, preferences and impacts.

Suggested Citation

  • te Boveldt, Geert & Keseru, Imre & Macharis, Cathy, 2022. "When monetarisation and ranking are not appropriate. A novel stakeholder-based appraisal method," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 192-205.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:156:y:2022:i:c:p:192-205
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2021.12.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856421003189
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2021.12.004?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
    ---><---

    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. Van Wee, Bert & Molin, Eric, 2012. "Transport and ethics: Dilemmas for CBA researchers. An interview-based study from the Netherlands," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 30-36.
    2. Vickerman, R., 2000. "Evaluation methodologies for transport projects in the United Kingdom," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 7-16, January.
    3. Willem Salet & Luca Bertolini & Mendel Giezen, 2013. "Complexity and Uncertainty: Problem or Asset in Decision Making of Mega Infrastructure Projects?," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 1984-2000, November.
    4. Lucie Laurian & Maxine Day & Michael Backhurst & Philip Berke & Neil Ericksen & Jan Crawford & Jenny Dixon & Sarah Chapman, 2004. "What drives plan implementation? Plans, planning agencies and developers," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(4), pages 555-577.
    5. Sen, Amartya Kumar, 2000. "The Discipline of Cost†Benefit Analysis," Scholarly Articles 3444801, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    6. Karen Lucas & Bert Wee & Kees Maat, 2016. "A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 473-490, May.
    7. Jenkins, G.P., 1998. "Evaluation of Stakeholder Impacts in Cost-Benefit Analysis," Papers 631, Harvard - Institute for International Development.
    8. Sen, Amartya, 2000. "The Discipline of Cost-Benefit Analysis," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(2), pages 931-952, June.
    9. te Boveldt, Geert & Van Raemdonck, Koen & Macharis, Cathy, 2018. "A new railway tunnel under Brussels? Assessing political feasibility and desirability with competence-based multi criteria analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 30-39.
    10. Boadway, Robin W, 1974. "The Welfare Foundations of Cost-Benefit Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 84(336), pages 926-939, December.
    11. 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.
    12. Bristow, A. L. & Nellthorp, J., 2000. "Transport project appraisal in the European Union," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 51-60, January.
    13. Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2016. "The CAR Method for Using Preference Strength in Multi-criteria Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 775-797, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lode, Maria Luisa & Felice, Alex & Martinez Alonso, Ander & De Silva, Jayesh & Angulo, Maria E. & Lowitzsch, Jens & Coosemans, Thierry & Ramirez Camargo, Luis, 2023. "Energy communities in rural areas: The participatory case study of Vega de Valcarce, Spain," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    2. Yang, Binxin & Wu, Guangdong, 2023. "Multi-criteria analysis of cross-regional railways interconnection under the post COVID-19 pandemic crisis: A hybrid BWM-FAISM-DFS evaluation framework," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    3. Shary Heuninckx & Cathy Macharis & Geert te Boveldt & Thierry Coosemans, 2023. "Evaluating the Potential of MAMCA as a Framework for Stakeholder Engagement during the Setup of Energy Communities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-21, May.

    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. Mouter, Niek & Koster, Paul & Dekker, Thijs, 2021. "Contrasting the recommendations of participatory value evaluation and cost-benefit analysis in the context of urban mobility investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 54-73.
    2. Öberg, Christina & Huge-Brodin, Maria & Björklund, Maria, 2012. "Applying a network level in environmental impact assessments," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 247-255.
    3. 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.
    4. Nurmi, Väinö & Ahtiainen, Heini, 2018. "Distributional Weights in Environmental Valuation and Cost-benefit Analysis: Theory and Practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 217-228.
    5. Derek Linton, 2024. "The Uncertainty Problem in Cost-Benefit Analysis Expanded: A Current Review," Journal of Economic Impact, Science Impact Publishers, vol. 6(1), pages 21-26.
    6. Hayashi, Y. & Morisugi, H., 2000. "International comparison of background concept and methodology of transportation project appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 73-88, January.
    7. José Manuel Viegas, 2012. "The urban mobility system and regional competitiveness," Chapters, in: Roberta Capello & Tomaz Ponce Dentinho (ed.), Networks, Space and Competitiveness, chapter 2, pages 35-55, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Freiberg, Germán & Giannotti, Mariana & Bittencourt, Taina A., 2024. "Are mass transit projects and public transport planning overlooking uneven distributional effects? Empirical evidence from Sao Paulo, Brazil," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    9. Aris Christodoulou & Panayotis Christidis, 2019. "Measuring Cross-Border Road Accessibility in the European Union," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-18, July.
    10. Adélie Ranville & Marcos Barros, 2022. "Towards Normative Theories of Social Entrepreneurship. A Review of the Top Publications of the Field," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(2), pages 407-438, October.
    11. van Wee, Bert, 2022. "Accessibility and equity: A conceptual framework and research agenda," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    12. Hyard, Alexandra, 2012. "Cost-benefit analysis according to Sen: An application in the evaluation of transport infrastructures in France," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 707-719.
    13. Cheney Shreve, 2016. "Economic Efficiency or Gender Equality: Conceptualizing an Equitable “Social Framing” for Economic Evaluations to Support Gender Equality in Disaster Risk- and Environmental-Management Decision-Making," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-16, July.
    14. Sharma, Ishant & Mishra, Sabyasachee & Golias, Mihalis M. & Welch, Timothy F. & Cherry, Christopher R., 2020. "Equity of transit connectivity in Tennessee cities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    15. Karen Lucas & Bert Wee & Kees Maat, 2016. "A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 473-490, May.
    16. Sanchez-Diaz, Ivan & Altuntas Vural, Ceren & Halldórsson, Árni, 2021. "Assessing the inequalities in access to online delivery services and the way COVID-19 pandemic affects marginalization," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 24-36.
    17. Penyalver, Domingo & Turró, Mateu & Williamson, John B., 2019. "Measuring the value for money of transport infrastructure procurement; an intergenerational approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 238-254.
    18. Paul Koster, 2023. "Counting what counts: Moral considerations and market surplus," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 23-008/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    19. Van Wee, Bert & Molin, Eric, 2012. "Transport and ethics: Dilemmas for CBA researchers. An interview-based study from the Netherlands," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 30-36.
    20. Skott, Peter & Davis, Leila, 2013. "Distributional biases in the analysis of climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 188-197.

    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:transa:v:156:y:2022:i:c:p:192-205. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    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.