IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v49y2013icp241-255.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ranking the substantive problems in the Dutch Cost–Benefit Analysis practice

Author

Listed:
  • Mouter, Niek
  • Annema, Jan Anne
  • van Wee, Bert

Abstract

This paper investigates the perceptions of key participants in the Dutch Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) practice regarding substantive problems when appraising spatial-infrastructure projects with CBA. Two research methods were applied. Firstly, 86 key participants in the Dutch CBA practice were interviewed in-depth in order to obtain an overview and a ranking of perceived substantive problems with CBA in the Netherlands. Secondly, the people interviewed were also asked to fill in a written questionnaire in which they were asked to rank the substantive problems once again, in order to improve the validity of the ranking; 74 of the participants completed this questionnaire. The most important conclusions of this paper are, firstly, that key participants in the Dutch CBA practice consider ‘problems with the estimation of the non-monetized project effects’ as the most important substantive problem cluster and ‘problems with monetizing project effects’ as the second most important substantive problem cluster. Secondly, key participants in the Dutch CBA practice consider the ‘problem analysis’ in a CBA to be a very important substantive problem. Thirdly, there is, in a broad sense, consensus among the different groups in the Dutch CBA practice concerning their perception of the seriousness of problem clusters and the way they rank the problem clusters. Fourthly, a large part of the substantive problems mentioned by the key participants in the Dutch CBA practice are non-specific CBA problems.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:49:y:2013:i:c:p:241-255
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2013.01.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096585641300027X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2013.01.020?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. Hollander, Yaron, 2006. "Direct versus indirect models for the effects of unreliability," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 699-711, November.
    2. Bråthen, Svein & Hervik, Arild, 1997. "Strait crossings and economic development : Developing economic impact assessment by means of ex post analyses," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 193-200, October.
    3. Nguyen-Hoang, Phuong & Yeung, Ryan, 2010. "What is paratransit worth?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 841-853, December.
    4. Flyvbjerg, Bent, 2005. "Measuring inaccuracy in travel demand forecasting: methodological considerations regarding ramp up and sampling," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 522-530, July.
    5. Mandell, Svante, 2011. "Carbon emission values in cost benefit analyses," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 888-892, November.
    6. Börjesson, Maria & Fosgerau, Mogens & Algers, Staffan, 2012. "On the income elasticity of the value of travel time," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 368-377.
    7. 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.
    8. Rotaris, Lucia & Danielis, Romeo & Marcucci, Edoardo & Massiani, Jérôme, 2010. "The urban road pricing scheme to curb pollution in Milan, Italy: Description, impacts and preliminary cost-benefit analysis assessment," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 359-375, June.
    9. Stern,Nicholas, 2007. "The Economics of Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521700801, October.
    10. Hauer, E., 1994. "Can one estimate the value of life or is it better to be dead than stuck in traffic?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 109-118, March.
    11. Tsamboulas, Dimitrios A., 2007. "A tool for prioritizing multinational transport infrastructure investments," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 11-26, January.
    12. Turner, RK, 1979. "Cost-benefit analysis--a critique," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 7(5), pages 411-419.
    13. Vickerman, R., 2000. "Evaluation methodologies for transport projects in the United Kingdom," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 7-16, January.
    14. Morisugi, H., 2000. "Evaluation methodologies of transportation projects in Japan," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 35-40, January.
    15. 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.
    16. Bent Flyvbjerg & Mette K. Skamris holm & Søren L. Buhl, 2003. "How common and how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects?," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 71-88, January.
    17. Gao, Song & Frejinger, Emma & Ben-Akiva, Moshe, 2011. "Cognitive cost in route choice with real-time information: An exploratory analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 916-926, November.
    18. Hensher, David A., 2006. "Towards a practical method to establish comparable values of travel time savings from stated choice experiments with differing design dimensions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 829-840, December.
    19. Weitzman, Martin L., 1998. "Why the Far-Distant Future Should Be Discounted at Its Lowest Possible Rate," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 201-208, November.
    20. Wardman, Mark, 2004. "Public transport values of time," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 363-377, October.
    21. 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.
    22. Fosgerau, Mogens, 2007. "Using nonparametrics to specify a model to measure the value of travel time," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 842-856, November.
    23. Hansson, Sven Ove, 2007. "Philosophical Problems In Cost–Benefit Analysis," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 163-183, July.
    24. Verhoef, Erik, 1994. "External effects and social costs of road transport," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 273-287, July.
    25. Sevcíková, Hana & Raftery, Adrian E. & Waddell, Paul A., 2011. "Uncertain benefits: Application of Bayesian melding to the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 540-553, July.
    26. Sayers, T. M. & Jessop, A. T. & Hills, P. J., 2003. "Multi-criteria evaluation of transport options--flexible, transparent and user-friendly?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 95-105, April.
    27. Salling, Kim Bang & Banister, David, 2009. "Assessment of large transport infrastructure projects: The CBA-DK model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(9-10), pages 800-813, November.
    28. Rothengatter, W., 2000. "Evaluation of infrastructure investments in Germany," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 17-25, January.
    29. William D. Nordhaus, 2007. "A Review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 45(3), pages 686-702, September.
    30. 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.
    31. Damart, Sébastien & Roy, Bernard, 2009. "The uses of cost-benefit analysis in public transportation decision-making in France," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 200-212, August.
    32. Lee, D. B., 2000. "Methods for evaluation of transportation projects in the USA," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 41-50, January.
    33. Williams, Alan, 1972. "Cost-benefit analysis: Bastard science? and/or insidious poison in the body politick?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 199-225, August.
    34. Sen, Amartya Kumar, 2000. "The Discipline of Cost†Benefit Analysis," Scholarly Articles 3444801, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    35. Peter Mackie, 2010. "Cost-Benefit Analysis in Transport: A UK Perspective," OECD/ITF Joint Transport Research Centre Discussion Papers 2010/16, OECD Publishing.
    36. Quinet, E., 2000. "Evaluation methodologies of transportation projects in France," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 27-34, January.
    37. Jan Anne Annema & Carl Koopmans & Bert Van Wee, 2006. "Evaluating Transport Infrastructure Investments: The Dutch Experience with a Standardized Approach," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 125-150, June.
    38. Forkenbrock, David J., 2001. "Comparison of external costs of rail and truck freight transportation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 321-337, May.
    39. 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.
    40. 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.
    41. 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.
    42. Tudela, Alejandro & Akiki, Natalia & Cisternas, Rene, 2006. "Comparing the output of cost benefit and multi-criteria analysis: An application to urban transport investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 414-423, June.
    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. Song, Malin & Zheng, Wanping & Wang, Shuhong, 2017. "Measuring green technology progress in large-scale thermoelectric enterprises based on Malmquist–Luenberger life cycle assessment," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 261-269.
    2. Niek Mouter & Paul Koster & Thijs Dekker, 2019. "Participatory Value Evaluation versus Cost-Benefit Analysis: comparing recommendations in the context of urban mobility investments," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-046/VIII, Tinbergen Institute, revised 27 Jan 2020.
    3. Ma-Lin Song & Ron Fisher & Jian-Lin Wang & Lian-Biao Cui, 2018. "Environmental performance evaluation with big data: theories and methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 270(1), pages 459-472, November.
    4. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & Wee, Bert van, 2013. "Attitudes towards the role of Cost–Benefit Analysis in the decision-making process for spatial-infrastructure projects: A Dutch case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 1-14.
    5. Mouter, Niek, 2017. "Dutch politicians’ attitudes towards Cost-Benefit Analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-10.
    6. Vonk Noordegraaf, Diana & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2014. "Policy implementation lessons from six road pricing cases," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 172-191.
    7. Mouter, Niek & van Cranenburgh, Sander & van Wee, Bert, 2017. "An empirical assessment of Dutch citizens' preferences for spatial equality in the context of a national transport investment plan," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 217-230.
    8. Jan Anne Annema, 2013. "The use of CBA in decision-making on mega-projects: empirical evidence," Chapters, in: Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 13, pages 291-312, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Tijm, Joep & Michielsen, Thomas O. & van Maarseveen, Raoul & Zwaneveld, Peter, 2019. "How large are the non-travel time effects of urban highway tunneling? Evidence from Maastricht, the Netherlands," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 570-592.
    10. Peyman Babashamsi & Nur Izzi Md Yusoff & Halil Ceylan & Nor Ghani Md Nor & Hashem Salarzadeh Jenatabadi, 2016. "Sustainable Development Factors in Pavement Life-Cycle: Highway/Airport Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-21, March.
    11. Mouter, Niek & de Geest, Auke & Doorn, Neelke, 2018. "A values-based approach to energy controversies: Value-sensitive design applied to the Groningen gas controversy in the Netherlands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 639-648.
    12. Giezen, Mendel & Salet, Willem & Bertolini, Luca, 2015. "Adding value to the decision-making process of mega projects: Fostering strategic ambiguity, redundancy, and resilience," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 169-178.

    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 & Annema, Jan Anne & Wee, Bert van, 2013. "Attitudes towards the role of Cost–Benefit Analysis in the decision-making process for spatial-infrastructure projects: A Dutch case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 1-14.
    2. Cundric, A. & Kern, T. & Rajkovic, V., 2008. "A qualitative model for road investment appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 225-231, July.
    3. 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.
    4. Barfod, Michael Bruhn & Salling, Kim Bang, 2015. "A new composite decision support framework for strategic and sustainable transport appraisals," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 1-15.
    5. 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.
    6. Junn-Yuan Teng & Wen-Chih Huang & Maw-Cherng Lin, 2010. "Systematic budget allocation for transportation construction projects: a case in Taiwan," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 331-361, March.
    7. Salling, Kim Bang & Banister, David, 2009. "Assessment of large transport infrastructure projects: The CBA-DK model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(9-10), pages 800-813, November.
    8. Niek Mouter & Jan Annema & Bert Wee, 2015. "Managing the insolvable limitations of cost-benefit analysis: results of an interview based study," Transportation, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 277-302, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Salling, Kim Bang & Leleur, Steen, 2015. "Accounting for the inaccuracies in demand forecasts and construction cost estimations in transport project evaluation," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 8-18.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Polydoropoulou, Amalia & Roumboutsos, Athena, 2009. "Evaluating the impact of decision making during construction on transport project outcome," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 369-380, November.
    14. Khraibani, R. & de Palma, A. & Picard, N. & Kaysi, I., 2016. "A new evaluation and decision making framework investigating the elimination-by-aspects model in the context of transportation projects' investment choices," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 67-81.
    15. 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.
    16. Bert van Wee, 2011. "Transport and Ethics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14281.
    17. Shi, Jing & Zhou, Nian, 2012. "A quantitative transportation project investment evaluation approach with both equity and efficiency aspects," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 93-100.
    18. S. Scrieciu & Valerie Belton & Zaid Chalabi & Reinhard Mechler & Daniel Puig, 2014. "Advancing methodological thinking and practice for development-compatible climate policy planning," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 261-288, March.
    19. Short, Jack & Kopp, Andreas, 2005. "Transport infrastructure: Investment and planning. Policy and research aspects," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 360-367, July.
    20. Carlos Oliveira Cruz & Joaquim Miranda Sarmento, 2020. "Traffic forecast inaccuracy in transportation: a literature review of roads and railways projects," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1571-1606, August.

    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:49:y:2013:i:c:p:241-255. 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.