IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20190046.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Participatory Value Evaluation versus Cost-Benefit Analysis: comparing recommendations in the context of urban mobility investments

Author

Listed:
  • Niek Mouter

    (Delft University of Technology)

  • Paul Koster

    (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

  • Thijs Dekker

    (University of Leeds)

Abstract

Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is a widely applied economic appraisal tool to support the planning and decision-making process for transport projects. In a CBA, impacts of government projects are made comparable by converting them into monetary units using the number of euros individuals are willing to pay from their private income. Scholars argue that such willingness-to-pay estimates may be a poor proxy for how the same individuals believe that their governments should trade-off public budget and impacts of government projects. Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) is a new appraisal method specifically designed to overcome this critique. PVE establishes the desirability of government projects based on an experiment in which individuals select their preferred portfolio of government projects given a constrained public budget. The present paper investigates whether CBA and PVE lead to different policy recommendations. We conducted CBAs and a PVE for 16 transport projects and find that projects which focus on improving traffic safety and improvements for cyclists/pedestrians perform relatively good in the PVE, whereas car projects perform relatively good in the CBA analysis. Moreover, this paper explains how the results of a PVE should be positioned next to the results of a CBA and it generates empirical insights into potential reasons why safety projects and cycling project perform differently in a PVE.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20190046
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papers.tinbergen.nl/19046.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Manaugh, Kevin & Badami, Madhav G. & El-Geneidy, Ahmed M., 2015. "Integrating social equity into urban transportation planning: A critical evaluation of equity objectives and measures in transportation plans in North America," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 167-176.
    2. 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.
    3. Pesch, Udo & Correljé, Aad & Cuppen, Eefje & Taebi, Behnam, 2017. "Energy justice and controversies: Formal and informal assessment in energy projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 825-834.
    4. Francisco J. Bahamonde-Birke & Uwe Kunert & Heike Link, 2015. "The Value of a Statistical Life in a Road Safety Context -- A Review of the Current Literature," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(4), pages 488-511, July.
    5. Nyborg, Karine, 1998. "Some Norwegian Politicians' Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 95(3-4), pages 381-401, June.
    6. Thijs Dekker & Paul (P.R.) Koster & Niek Mouter, 2019. "The economics of participatory value evaluation," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-008/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. 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.
    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. Börjesson, Maria & Eliasson, Jonas, 2014. "Experiences from the Swedish Value of Time study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 144-158.
    10. De Bruijn, Hans & Veeneman, Wijnand, 2009. "Decision-making for light rail," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 349-359, May.
    11. Kouwenhoven, Marco & de Jong, Gerard C. & Koster, Paul & van den Berg, Vincent A.C. & Verhoef, Erik T. & Bates, John & Warffemius, Pim M.J., 2014. "New values of time and reliability in passenger transport in The Netherlands," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 37-49.
    12. Hensher, David A. & Rose, John M. & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I., 2009. "Estimating the willingness to pay and value of risk reduction for car occupants in the road environment," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 692-707, August.
    13. 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.
    14. Goodman, A. & Sahlqvist, S. & Ogilvie, D., 2014. "New walking and cycling routes and increased physical activity: One- and 2-year findings from the UK iConnect study," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 104(9), pages 38-46.
    15. Börjesson, Maria & Eliasson, Jonas, 2012. "The value of time and external benefits in bicycle appraisal," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 673-683.
    16. Alphonce, Roselyne & Alfnes, Frode & Sharma, Amit, 2014. "Consumer vs. citizen willingness to pay for restaurant food safety," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 160-166.
    17. 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.
    18. -, 1986. "Agenda = Agenda," Series Históricas 8749, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    19. Mackie, Peter & Worsley, Tom & Eliasson, Jonas, 2014. "Transport appraisal revisited," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 3-18.
    20. 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.
    21. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Dworkin, Michael H., 2015. "Energy justice: Conceptual insights and practical applications," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 435-444.
    22. Richard T. Carson, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative When Prices Aren't Available," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 27-42, Fall.
    23. Benjamin K. Sovacool & Raphael J. Heffron & Darren McCauley & Andreas Goldthau, 2016. "Energy decisions reframed as justice and ethical concerns," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 1(5), pages 1-6, May.
    24. Robin Hickman & Marco Dean, 2018. "Incomplete cost – incomplete benefit analysis in transport appraisal," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(6), pages 689-709, November.
    25. Amartya Sen, 1995. "Environmental Evaluation And Social Choice: Contingent Valuation And The Market Analogy," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 46(1), pages 23-37, March.
    26. Abrantes, Pedro A.L. & Wardman, Mark R., 2011. "Meta-analysis of UK values of travel time: An update," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 1-17, January.
    27. 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.
    28. Robert W. Hahn & Paul C. Tetlock, 2008. "Has Economic Analysis Improved Regulatory Decisions?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 22(1), pages 67-84, Winter.
    29. Handy, Susan, 2008. "Regional transportation planning in the US: An examination of changes in technical aspects of the planning process in response to changing goals," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 113-126, March.
    30. Banister, David, 2008. "The sustainable mobility paradigm," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 73-80, March.
    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. Mulderij, Lisanne S. & Hernández, José Ignacio & Mouter, Niek & Verkooijen, Kirsten T. & Wagemakers, Annemarie, 2021. "Citizen preferences regarding the public funding of projects promoting a healthy body weight among people with a low income," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).

    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. 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.
    3. Mouter, Niek & Cabral, Manuel Ojeda & Dekker, Thijs & van Cranenburgh, Sander, 2019. "The value of travel time, noise pollution, recreation and biodiversity: A social choice valuation perspective," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    4. Mouter, Niek & van Cranenburgh, Sander & van Wee, Bert, 2017. "Do individuals have different preferences as consumer and citizen? The trade-off between travel time and safety," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 333-349.
    5. Niek Mouter & Paul Koster & Thijs Dekker, 2019. "An introduction to Participatory Value Evaluation," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-024/V, Tinbergen Institute, revised 15 Dec 2019.
    6. 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.
    7. Mouter, Niek, 2017. "Dutch politicians’ attitudes towards Cost-Benefit Analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-10.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Krčál, Ondřej & Peer, Stefanie & Staněk, Rostislav & Karlínová, Bára, 2019. "Real consequences matter: Why hypothetical biases in the valuation of time persist even in controlled lab experiments," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 20(C).
    11. Mouter, Niek & Chorus, Caspar, 2016. "Value of time – A citizen perspective," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 317-329.
    12. 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).
    13. 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.
    14. Jayapalan, C. & Ganesh, L.S., 2019. "Environmentalists and their conflicts with Energy Justice – Concept of “Power-Environ” in the Athirappilly HEPP in Kerala," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 215-229.
    15. Yang, Wenyue & Chen, Bi Yu & Cao, Xiaoshu & Li, Tao & Li, Peng, 2017. "The spatial characteristics and influencing factors of modal accessibility gaps: A case study for Guangzhou, China," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 21-32.
    16. 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.
    17. Bardal, Kjersti Granås, 2020. "Contradictory outcomes of cost-benefit analyses – Findings from Norwegian public-investment projects," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    18. Sander Cranenburgh & Marco Kouwenhoven, 2021. "An artificial neural network based method to uncover the value-of-travel-time distribution," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(5), pages 2545-2583, October.
    19. Boisjoly, Geneviève & El-Geneidy, Ahmed M., 2017. "The insider: A planners' perspective on accessibility," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 33-43.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:tin:wpaper:20190046. 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: Tinbergen Office +31 (0)10-4088900 (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tinbenl.html .

    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.