IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v24y2012icp30-36.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transport and ethics: Dilemmas for CBA researchers. An interview-based study from the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Van Wee, Bert
  • Molin, Eric

Abstract

This paper presents the results of an interview- and web questionnaire-based study into the ethics-related dilemmas of researchers in the field of cost–benefit analysis (CBA) in the Netherlands. The results reveal first that ethical codes are only known to a limited extent by researchers in the Dutch CBA community, and formalized. Second, having the promoter of major infrastructure projects as the client for 'independent' ex ante CBA of those projects creates a conflict of interest, and limits the usefulness of CBA in modern societies. Third, respondents with a university background tend to value the interests of society more highly than consultants, who value the client's interests more. Fourth, role-related dilemmas can easily occur. A first dilemma in this category relates to the trade-off between the quality of research and constraints (on time, money, and delivery), a second dilemma relates to what research a university should or should not do, a third dilemma follows from the publication culture at universities. Fifth, the respondents believe that the Dutch OEI-guidelines (guidelines that explain that a CBA should be carried out for large national infrastructure projects, including how these CBAs should be carried out) increased the quality of CBAs for national projects in the Netherlands and reduced ethical dilemmas for researchers. We present several possible implications of our research, including arguments for developing codes of conduct for clients of research; doing CBA for more than only large national projects; and an independent second opinion or an independent committee supervising the CBA research.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:24:y:2012:i:c:p:30-36
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.06.021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X12001151
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.06.021?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. 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.
    2. Odeck, James, 2004. "Cost overruns in road construction--what are their sizes and determinants?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 43-53, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Bristow, A. L. & Nellthorp, J., 2000. "Transport project appraisal in the European Union," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 51-60, January.
    5. Flyvbjerg,Bent & Bruzelius,Nils & Rothengatter,Werner, 2003. "Megaprojects and Risk," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521009461, November.
    6. Bert van Wee, 2011. "Transport and Ethics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14281, December.
    7. Bert van Wee, 2007. "Large Infrastructure Projects: A Review of the Quality of Demand Forecasts and Cost Estimations," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 34(4), pages 611-625, August.
    8. 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. 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.
    2. Bert Van Wee, 2015. "Towards a code of conduct for clients of research?," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(1), pages 1-3, January.

    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. 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.
    2. van Wee, Bert, 2016. "Accessible accessibility research challenges," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 9-16.
    3. Bert van Wee & Jan Anne Annema & Hugo Priemus, 2013. "Model building for infrastructure initiatives," Chapters, in: Peter Karl Kresl & Jaime Sobrino (ed.), Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Urban Economies, chapter 17, pages 423-441, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Cantarelli, C.C. & Molin, E.J.E. & van Wee, B. & Flyvbjerg, B., 2012. "Characteristics of cost overruns for Dutch transport infrastructure projects and the importance of the decision to build and project phases," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 49-56.
    7. Bert van Wee, 2011. "Transport and Ethics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14281, December.
    8. van Wee, Bert & Börjesson, Maria, 2015. "How to make CBA more suitable for evaluating cycling policies," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 117-124.
    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. 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.
    11. Carl Koopmans & Piet Rietveld, 2013. "Long-term impacts of mega-projects: the discount rate," Chapters, in: Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 14, pages 313-332, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. 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.
    13. Sallam, Walid & Ahmed, Osama, 2020. "The socio-economic assessment to evaluate the potentiality of developing the rural community in Upper Egypt," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 8(2), pages 143-165.
    14. Morten Skou Nicolaisen & Patrick A. Driscoll, 2016. "An International Review of Ex-Post Project Evaluation Schemes in the Transport Sector," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(01), pages 1-33, March.
    15. 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.
    16. Osama Ahmed & Walid Sallam, 2020. "Assessing the Potential of Improving Livelihoods and Creating Sustainable Socio-Economic Circumstances for Rural Communities in Upper Egypt," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-23, August.
    17. Bert van Wee, 2013. "Ethics and the ex ante evaluation of mega-projects," Chapters, in: Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 16, pages 356-378, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Cantarelli, C.C. & Flyvbjerg, B. & Buhl, S.L., 2012. "Geographical variation in project cost performance: the Netherlands versus worldwide," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 324-331.
    19. Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), 2013. "International Handbook on Mega-Projects," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14791, December.
    20. Andersson, Matts & Berglund, Moa & Flodén, Jonas & Persson, Christer & Waidringer, Jonas, 2017. "A method for measuring and valuing transport time variability in logistics and cost benefit analysis," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 59-69.

    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:trapol:v:24:y:2012:i:c:p:30-36. 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/30473/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.