IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/transr/v27y2006i2p125-150.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating Transport Infrastructure Investments: The Dutch Experience with a Standardized Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Jan Anne Annema
  • Carl Koopmans
  • Bert Van Wee

Abstract

The Dutch government introduced a requirement in 2000 to evaluate proposed major infrastructure plans using a cost--benefit analysis (CBA) following published guidelines. Since then 13 new major infrastructure projects have been evaluated. The paper reviews the Dutch standardized CBA practice since 2000. The overall conclusion is that the use of standardized CBA has improved the quality of ex‐ante evaluations of large infrastructure projects in the Netherlands. However, the relatively young CBA practice has not yet fulfilled its full potential. About half of the CBAs analysed can be considered as being suitable for helping decision‐making. The other half has weaknesses with respect to methods and assumptions. Looking at the standardized CBA’s influence on policy‐making, the most important conclusion is that unfavourable CBA results have contributed to the postponement of decisions and to the downsizing of projects.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:transr:v:27:y:2006:i:2:p:125-150
    DOI: 10.1080/01441640600843237
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01441640600843237
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01441640600843237?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. Kopp, Raymond J. & Krupnick, Alan J. & Toman, Michael, 1997. "Cost-Benefit Analysis and Regulatory Reform: An Assessment of the Science and the Art," Discussion Papers 10851, Resources for the Future.
    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. Wijnen, Wim & Wesemann, Paul & de Blaeij, Arianne, 2009. "Valuation of road safety effects in cost-benefit analysis," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 326-331, November.
    3. David Banister & Michael Browne & Moshe Givoni, 2010. "Transport Reviews—The 30-super-th Anniversary of the Journal," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 1-10, January.
    4. 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.
    5. Bert van Wee, 2011. "Transport and Ethics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14281.
    6. Stef Proost & Fay Dunkerley & Saskia Loo & Nicole Adler & Johannes Bröcker & Artem Korzhenevych, 2014. "Do the selected Trans European transport investments pass the cost benefit test?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 107-132, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Gössling, Stefan & Choi, Andy S., 2015. "Transport transitions in Copenhagen: Comparing the cost of cars and bicycles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 106-113.
    9. 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.
    10. Jonas Eliasson & Maria Börjesson & James Odeck & Morten Welde, 2015. "Does Benefit-Cost Efficiency Influence Transport Investment Decisions?," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 49(3), pages 377-396, July.
    11. António Ferreira & Els Beukers & Marco Te Brömmelstroet, 2012. "Accessibility is Gold, Mobility is Not: A Proposal for the Improvement of Dutch Transport-Related Cost-Benefit Analysis," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 39(4), pages 683-697, August.
    12. Bakker, P. & Koopmans, C. & Nijkamp, P., 2009. "Appraisal of integrated transport policies," Serie Research Memoranda 0052, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Beukers, Els & Bertolini, Luca & Te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2014. "Using cost benefit analysis as a learning process: identifying interventions for improving communication and trust," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 61-72.
    16. Salvador Bertomeu & Antonio Estache, 2016. "Unbundling Political and Economic Rationality: a Non-Parametric Approach Tested on Spain," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2016-17, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    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. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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. Toman, Michael & Lile, Ronald D. & King, Dennis M., 1998. "Assessing Sustainability: Some Conceptual and Empirical Challenges," Discussion Papers 10756, Resources for the Future.
    2. Oriana Gava & Fabio Bartolini & Francesca Venturi & Gianluca Brunori & Angela Zinnai & Alberto Pardossi, 2018. "A Reflection of the Use of the Life Cycle Assessment Tool for Agri-Food Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, December.
    3. Toman, Michael, 1998. "Sustainable Decisionmaking: The State of the Art from an Economics Perspective," RFF Working Paper Series dp-98-39, Resources for the Future.
    4. Roberts, Donna, 1998. "Implementation Of The Wto Agreement On The Application Of Sanitary And Phytosanitary Measures: The First Two Years," Working Papers 14588, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    5. Marco Grasso, 2004. "Utilizzo e diffusione della valutazione economica dei beni," Others 0406002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Nathalie de Marcellis-Warin & Ingrid Peignier & Bernard Sinclair-Desgagné, 2002. "Analyse économique du Risk Management Program (section 112® du « Clean Air Act »)," CIRANO Project Reports 2002rp-12, CIRANO.
    7. Linacre, Nicholas A. & Gaskell, Joanne & Rosegrant, Mark W. & Falck-Zepeda, José & Quemada, Hector & Halsey, Mark & Birner, Regina, 2005. "Analysis for biotechnology innovations using Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA):," EPTD discussion papers 140, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    8. 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.
    9. Ramadhan, Mohammad & Naseeb, Adel, 2011. "The cost benefit analysis of implementing photovoltaic solar system in the state of Kuwait," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1272-1276.
    10. Kousky, Carolyn & Lingle, Brett & Ritchie, Liesel & Tierney, Kathleen, 2017. "Social Return on Investment Analysis and Its Applicability to Community Preparedness Activities: Calculating Costs and Returns," RFF Working Paper Series 17-12, Resources for the Future.
    11. Y. Sarafidis & S. Mirasgedis & E. Georgopoulou & D. P. Lalas, 2002. "Economic Evaluation of Carbon Dioxide Emission Abatement Measures in the Greek Energy Sector," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(2), pages 181-198.
    12. Revesz, Richard & Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Environmental Law and Policy," Working Paper Series rwp04-023, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    13. Jennifer Mckay & Anthony Moeller, 2001. "Duty and Standards of Care for Drinking Water Regulation in Australia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 127-143, June.
    14. Ian Bateman & Amii Harwood & David Abson & Barnaby Andrews & Andrew Crowe & Steve Dugdale & Carlo Fezzi & Jo Foden & David Hadley & Roy Haines-Young & Mark Hulme & Andreas Kontoleon & Paul Munday & Un, 2014. "Economic Analysis for the UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis and Scenario Valuation of Changes in Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(2), pages 273-297, February.
    15. Bo-Young Heo & Won-Ho Heo, 2019. "Economic Analysis of Disaster Management Investment Effectiveness in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-13, May.
    16. Zhang, Da & Tang, Songlin & Lin, Bao & Liu, Zhen & Zhang, Xiliang & Zhang, Danwei, 2012. "Co-benefit of polycrystalline large-scale photovoltaic power in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 436-442.
    17. David Ocio & Christian Stocker & Ángel Eraso & Arantza Martínez & José Galdeano, 2016. "Towards a reliable and cost-efficient flood risk management: the case of the Basque Country (Spain)," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 617-639, March.
    18. Frank van Tongeren & John Beghin & Stéphane Marette, 2009. "A Cost-Benefit Framework for the Assessment of Non-Tariff Measures in Agro-Food Trade," OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 21, OECD Publishing.
    19. Oriana Gava & Francesca Galli & Fabio Bartolini & Gianluca Brunori, 2018. "Linking Sustainability with Geographical Proximity in Food Supply Chains. An Indicator Selection Framework," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-22, August.
    20. Pence, Justin & Abolhelm, Marzieh & Mohaghegh, Zahra & Reihani, Seyed & Ertem, Mehmet & Kee, Ernie, 2018. "Methodology to evaluate the monetary benefit of Probabilistic Risk Assessment by modeling the net value of Risk-Informed Applications at nuclear power plants," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 171-182.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:transr:v:27:y:2006:i:2:p:125-150. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/TTRV20 .

    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.