IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v58y2013icp1-14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attitudes towards the role of Cost–Benefit Analysis in the decision-making process for spatial-infrastructure projects: A Dutch case study

Author

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

Abstract

This paper provides a systematic overview of the attitudes of key actors in the Dutch Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) practice towards the role of CBA in the decision-making process for spatial-infrastructure projects. The main aim of this paper is to scrutinize the extent to which there is agreement among these Dutch actors in regard to the role of the CBA in the decision-making process. A secondary goal is to provide possible explanations for agreements and controversies among key actors in the Dutch CBA practice. In this study two research methods are combined to study the key actors’ attitudes. Firstly, 86 key actors (e.g. consultants, scientists, policy makers) were interviewed in-depth. Secondly, 74 of them completed a written questionnaire. The most important conclusion of this paper is that in the Dutch CBA practice there is agreement that CBA must have a role in the appraisal process of spatial-infrastructure projects. However, there is a lot of controversy among economists and spatial planners in the Dutch CBA practice concerning the value that is and should be assigned to CBA in the decision-making process. Economists predominantly believe that not enough value is assigned to the CBA in the decision-making process, whereas spatial planners predominantly think that too much value is assigned to the CBA. Both economists and spatial planners believe that this controversy is problematic as it results in debates about the pros and cons of CBA instead of the pros and cons of the spatial-infrastructure projects. This paper analyzes some solutions for this controversy.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:58:y:2013:i:c:p:1-14
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2013.10.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856413001869
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2013.10.006?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. 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. Nellthorp, J. & Mackie, P. J., 2000. "The UK Roads Review--a hedonic model of decision making," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 127-138, April.
    3. Frank, Robert H, 2000. "Why Is Cost-Benefit Analysis So Controversial?," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(2), pages 913-930, June.
    4. Thomopoulos, Nikolaos & Grant-Muller, Susan, 2013. "Incorporating equity as part of the wider impacts in transport infrastructure assessment: an application of the SUMINI approach," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60073, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Hansson, Sven Ove, 2007. "Philosophical Problems In Cost–Benefit Analysis," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 163-183, July.
    6. Nyborg, Karine, 1998. "Some Norwegian Politicians' Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 95(3-4), pages 381-401, June.
    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. Rothengatter, W., 2000. "Evaluation of infrastructure investments in Germany," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 17-25, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Sen, Amartya Kumar, 2000. "The Discipline of Cost†Benefit Analysis," Scholarly Articles 3444801, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    11. Quinet, E., 2000. "Evaluation methodologies of transportation projects in France," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 27-34, January.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. World Bank, 2010. "Cost-Benefit Analysis in World Bank Projects," World Bank Publications - Reports 10481, The World Bank Group.
    19. Emile Quinet, 2010. "The Practice of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Transport: The Case of France," OECD/ITF Joint Transport Research Centre Discussion Papers 2010/17, OECD Publishing.
    20. 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.
    21. Sunstein, Cass R, 2000. "Cognition and Cost-Benefit Analysis," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(2), pages 1059-1103, June.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. Peter Mackie, 2010. "Cost-Benefit Analysis in Transport: A UK Perspective," OECD/ITF Joint Transport Research Centre Discussion Papers 2010/16, OECD Publishing.
    25. 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.
    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. Jan Anne Annema & Koen Frenken & Carl Koopmans & Maarten Kroesen, 2017. "Relating cost-benefit analysis results with transport project decisions in the Netherlands," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 109-127, March.
    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. Vigren, Andreas & Ljungberg, Anders, 2018. "Public Transport Authorities’ use of Cost-Benefit Analysis in practice," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 560-567.
    4. Bardal, Kjersti Granås, 2020. "Contradictory outcomes of cost-benefit analyses – Findings from Norwegian public-investment projects," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    5. Bondemark, Anders & Sundbergh, Pia & Tornberg, Patrik & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2020. "Do impact assessments influence transport plans? The case of Sweden," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 52-64.
    6. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 77-83.
    7. Jussila Hammes , Johanna, 2017. "The impact of career concerns and cognitive dissonance on bureaucrats’ use of cost-benefit analysis," Working papers in Transport Economics 2017:5, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    8. Johanna Jussila Hammes, 2021. "The Impact of Career Concerns and Cognitive Dissonance on Bureaucrats’ Use of Benefit-Cost Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(2), pages 409-424, October.
    9. Frilingou, Natasha & Koasidis, Konstantinos & Spyridaki, Niki-Artemis & Nikas, Alexandros & Marinakis, Vangelis & Doukas, Haris, 2024. "Is it feasible to implement minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) for existing buildings in Greece? A cost-benefit evaluation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    10. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Chorus, Caspar G., 2018. "Does the decision rule matter for large-scale transport models?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 114(PB), pages 338-353.
    11. Asplund, Disa & Eliasson, Jonas, 2016. "Does uncertainty make cost-benefit analyses pointless?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 195-205.
    12. Mouter, Niek, 2017. "Dutch politicians’ attitudes towards Cost-Benefit Analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-10.
    13. Laird, James J. & Venables, Anthony J., 2017. "Transport investment and economic performance: A framework for project appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 1-11.
    14. Andreas Økland & Nils O. E. Olsson & Marte Venstad, 2021. "Sustainability in Railway Investments, a Study of Early-Phase Analyses and Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, January.
    15. 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.
    16. Francis Marleau Donais & Irène Abi-Zeid & E. Owen D. Waygood & Roxane Lavoie, 2019. "A review of cost–benefit analysis and multicriteria decision analysis from the perspective of sustainable transport in project evaluation," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 327-358, November.
    17. Jussila Hammes, Johanna & Nerhagen, Lena & Congdon Fors, Heather, 2019. "The influence of individual characteristics and institutional norms on bureaucrats’ use of CBA in environmental policy: a model and a choice experiment," Working Papers 2019:6, Swedish National Road & Transport Research Institute (VTI).
    18. Becker, Nir & Kimhi, Ayal & Argaman, Eli, 2020. "Costs and benefits of waste soils removal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    19. Biancardo, Salvatore Antonio & Gesualdi, Michele & Savastano, Davide & Intignano, Mattia & Henke, Ilaria & Pagliara, Francesca, 2023. "An innovative framework for integrating Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) within Building Information Modeling (BIM)," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    20. Geoffrey A. Battista & Kevin Manaugh, 2019. "My way or the highway? Framing transportation planners’ attitudes in negotiating professional expertise and public insight," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 1271-1290, August.
    21. 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.
    22. Bondemark, Anders & Andersson, Henrik & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2022. "Public preferences for distribution in the context of transport investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 160-184.

    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 & 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Mouter, Niek, 2017. "Dutch politicians’ attitudes towards Cost-Benefit Analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-10.
    5. 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.
    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. 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.
    8. Francis Marleau Donais & Irène Abi-Zeid & E. Owen D. Waygood & Roxane Lavoie, 2019. "A review of cost–benefit analysis and multicriteria decision analysis from the perspective of sustainable transport in project evaluation," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 327-358, November.
    9. Bert van Wee, 2011. "Transport and Ethics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14281.
    10. Jan Anne Annema & Koen Frenken & Carl Koopmans & Maarten Kroesen, 2017. "Relating cost-benefit analysis results with transport project decisions in the Netherlands," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 109-127, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Thomopoulos, Nikolaos & Grant-Muller, Susan, 2013. "Incorporating equity as part of the wider impacts in transport infrastructure assessment: an application of the SUMINI approach," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60073, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. 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.
    14. Jolanta Bijańska & Krzysztof Wodarski & Aneta Aleksander, 2022. "Analysis of the Financing Options for Pro-Ecological Projects," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-30, March.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Heidi Peterson, 2023. "Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) or the Highway? An Alternative Road to Investigating the Value for Money of International Development Research," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(2), pages 260-280, April.
    18. Guirao, Begoña & Campa, Juan Luis, 2015. "The effects of tourism on HSR: Spanish empirical evidence derived from a multi-criteria corridor selection methodology," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 37-46.
    19. 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.
    20. Bertoméu-Sánchez, Salvador & Estache, Antonio, 2017. "Unbundling political and economic rationality: A non-parametric approach tested on transport infrastructure in Spain," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 181-195.

    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:58:y:2013:i:c:p:1-14. 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.