Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Literature review: developing a holistic tool for Non-Motorised Transport projects
1
Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1. Introduction: Developing countries and Non-Motorised Transport ........................................ 3
1.1 Urbanization and transportation in developing countries ................................................ 3
1.2 Sustainable Transport: Non-Motorised Transport as a dominant form................................. 4
2. Non-Motorised Transport: the potential solution to urban living............................................ 6
2.1 Benefits for the individual ................................................................................................ 7
2.1.1 Health benefits for individuals ....................................................................................... 7
2.1.2 Time-savings for individuals .......................................................................................... 7
2.1.3 Financial savings for individuals .................................................................................... 7
2.1.4 Increased equity for individuals ..................................................................................... 8
2.2 Benefits for the community .............................................................................................. 9
2.2.1 The reduced demand for motorised transport facilities and related resources ............... 9
2.2.2 Improved road safety ...................................................................................................... 9
2.2.3 Economic benefits for residential and commercial areas ............................................. 10
2.2.4 Societal benefits including............................................................................................ 10
2.3 Benefits for the environment .......................................................................................... 11
3. Ex-ante evaluation of Non-Motorised Transport: The need for a comprehensive tool ......... 12
3.1 Ethical and practical concerns regarding the structure of such a tool ............................ 13
3.1.1 Ethical concerns regarding CBA ............................................................................ 13
3.2 Data in a developing world context................................................................................ 14
3.3 The context that this tool could be used within .............................................................. 15
4. Important aspects of developing an appropriate tool............................................................. 16
4.1 CBA and MCA as components within the tool .............................................................. 16
4.2 Potential Key Performance Indicators for Tool ............................................................. 16
4.2.1 Health Indicators ..................................................................................................... 17
2
4.2.2 Environmental Indicators ........................................................................................ 18
4.2.3 Social Indicators...................................................................................................... 18
4.2.4 Economic Indicators ............................................................................................... 19
5. Ex-ante evaluation tools for NMT assessment ...................................................................... 20
5.1 Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) ...................................................................................... 20
5.1.1 Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) .......................................................................... 20
5.1.2 Analytic network process (ANP) ............................................................................ 21
5.1.3 Regime analysis ...................................................................................................... 22
5.2 Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) .......................................................................................... 23
5.2.1 Structure of a CBA.................................................................................................. 23
5.2.2 Examples of CBA utilisation in NMT infrastructure evaluation ............................ 24
5.2.3 Criticism of CBA use for evaluation of NMT infrastructure .................................. 26
5.3 Methodological best practice ......................................................................................... 28
5.3.1 Economic: Value of time ........................................................................................ 28
5.3.2 Health benefits: Reduced risk of mortality ............................................................. 28
5.3.3 Environmental: Climate change mitigation ............................................................ 29
5.3.4 Social: Security, severance and journey quality impacts ........................................ 30
5.4 Examples of CB-MCA utilisation in NMT infrastructure evaluation ............................ 31
6. References ............................................................................................................................. 35
3
1. Introduction: Developing countries and Non-Motorised Transport
As the rates of urbanization in developing countries continue to increase, the
negative externalities of transport begins to have critical impacts on urban
populations and the environment.
This literature review begins with an analysis of the status quo for many developing countries,
regarding challenges in transport as well as in health and social issues. Secondly, the review
investigates why Non-Motorised Transport (NMT) should be considered in more meaningful
ways as a potential solution for transportation challenges. The section is followed by an
investigation into ex-ante evaluations of Non-Motorised Transport infrastructure investments.
Finally, the important aspects relating to the development of a tool that evaluate ex-ante Non-
Motorised Transport Projects are summarized.
In order to fully understand the role NMT could potentially have in addressing the various
challenges of developing countries, the fundamental characteristics of developing countries are
first investigated. This is important in order to highlight the differences between developing and
developed countries, as many of the models used and the literature regarding Non-Motorised
Transport are based on European / developed countries.
1.1 Urbanization and transportation in developing countries
Transportation is a functional element of society that facilitates the movement of goods and
people. Efficient transportation networks form the base for equitable and sustainable urban
environments and the economies thereof. Transport is influenced significantly by the people
themselves and the general trends within that society, as well as its’ unique spatial distribution
(van Wee, 2011).
As the number of developing countries experiencing increasing rates of urbanization grows
(United Nations, 2010), sustainable transportation is critical to ensuring that the development is
not hindered (Bogota Declaration, 2011). This is especially true with regards to sustaining or
improving the liveability of urban spaces as well as ensuring the sustainability of the
environment.
4
The supply of transport has to be as efficient as possible. Transport facilities and infrastructure
for motorised transport, require significant amounts of non-renewable resources in order to be
built and maintained. In addition, transportation facilities, in themselves, can create barriers for
the movement of people as well as utilize large amounts of land (Sælensminde, 2004; van Wee,
2011).
The external cost of motorised transportation has become increasingly evident to countries
throughout the world. For example, transportation contributes significantly towards greenhouse
gases emissions, air pollution, safety and health concerns. This has resulted in initiatives to
improve the sustainability of transport, such as the Bogotá Declaration on Sustainable Transport
following from the Rio+20 High Level Dialogue on Sustainable Cities in 2011.
1.2 Sustainable Transport: Non-Motorised Transport as a dominant form
Sustainable transport is defined in the Bogota’s Declaration (2011) (page 1) as:
“(T)he provision of services and infrastructure for the mobility of people and goods
needed for economic and social development and improved quality of life and
competitiveness. These services and transport infrastructure provide secure, reliable,
economical, efficient, equitable and affordable access to all, while mitigating the
negative impacts on health and the environment locally and globally, in the short,
medium and long term without compromising the development of future generations."
Non-Motorised Transport is a sustainable mode of transport (Massink et al., 2011). This is
primarily due to the reduced external costs and higher value of benefits (Litman, 2007; Sinnett et
al., 2011). The range of benefits of Non-Motorised Transport is also wider than the benefits that
can be obtained through motorised transport, especially on an individual level (Pucher and
Buehler, 2010).
Whether the Non-Motorised Transport mode is used for only a part of the entire journey or for
the whole journey, it helps reduce the number of motorised trips and distance. Hence, reducing
motorised trips is an important element in lowering the amount of non-renewable resources used
and the external costs that are generated by motorised transport trips (Pucher and Buehler, 2010;
Murguía, 2004; Elvik, 1999).
5
However, despite the various benefits and the value NMT has for both people and the
environment, it is often not prioritized (Hüging et al., 2014). This is partly due to the
conventional focus on motorised transport modes in policy and practice (Macmillian, 2014;
Litman, 2007). Another important issue that hinders the implementation of NMT projects is the
lack of adequate tools to assess these types of projects (Hüging et al., 2014; Sinnett et al., 2011,
Litman, 2007).
Due to the lack of information regarding the potential impact that NMT projects or single NMT
measures can have, decision makers often overlook them in favour of initiatives that come with
more information and/or evidence (Litman, 2007; Pucher and Buehler, 2010).
Motorised transport projects generally are easier to cost and the benefits thereof are normally
easier to quantify both ex-ante and ex-post to the implementation. All these factors have
contributed to NMT projects being overlooked and undervalued in developing countries (Pucher
and Buehler, 2010; Litman, 2007).
6
2. Non-Motorised Transport: the potential solution to urban living
As the externalities of motorised transport hinder economic and social
development and equality, more sustainable solutions to transportation are being
emphasised by both public decision-makers and private stakeholders.
Traditional engineering practices are primarily concerned with ensuring the efficient and optimal
flow of motorised vehicles, especially those of privately owned motor vehicles. The aims of this
modelling of transportation are to ensure that the flow of vehicles occurs with as little delay as
possible at the highest speed that is safe to recommend. This traditional approach to transport
does not concern itself with the movement of people in and out of vehicles or any other road
users that may not be in a motorised vehicle (Litman, 2007).
Providing for motorised transportation is expensive and consumes a significant amount of non-
renewable resources (Macmillan, 2014; Massink et al., 2011). Increasing road-widths and
facilities to alleviate congestion, which is mainly due to privately-owned motor vehicles, has
proven to be largely unsuccessful and unsustainable (Macmillan, 2014; Litman, 2007; Bogota
Declaration, 2011).
In order to change how people choose to travel, alternative modes need to be made available,
while the current transportation modes that have the highest negative externalities need to be
discouraged (Sinnett et al., 2011; Bogota Declaration). Non-Motorised Transport is by far the
most sustainable mode of transport and has several positive benefits for the individual, the
community and the environment (Pucher and Buehler, 2010; Sinnett et al., 2011; Macmillan,
2014; Litman, 2007; Massink et al., 2011), especially for short to medium distance trips.
7
2.1 Benefits for the individual
Illustrating how Non-Motorised Transport can benefit individuals on a personal
level is a step towards changing negative social and cultural perceptions of Non -
Motorised Transport into more positive ones.
2.1.1 Health benefits for individuals
On the individual level there are several benefits of shifting towards non-motorised trips (Pucher
and Buehler, 2010; Litman, 2007; Sinnett et al, 2011). One of the most valuable benefits is the
health benefits that individuals gain (Sinnett et al, 2011). The significance of walking and
cycling, which are the main varieties of NMT, is well established (Pucher and Buehler, 2010;
Litman, 2007; Sinnett et al, 2011).
These health benefits contribute highly towards the total beneficial value of NMT (Sælensminde,
2004; Macmillan et al, 2014). Macmillan et al. (2014) find that the greatest component of the
benefits of NMT is the overall reduction in mortality from physical inactivity. It can contribute
to up to half of the total beneficial value in case studies conducted in European cities
(Sælensminde, 2004).
Considering that transport policy has been identified as a determinant of the global non-
communicable diseases (NCD) crisis, NMT can have a significant impact on improving health
(Macmillan et al., 2014).
2.1.2 Time-savings for individuals
Depending on the type of NMT facilities, individuals that shift to NMT trips can save time due to
reduced time spend in traffic as well as travelling on shorter routes that are more direct due to the
more flexible nature of NMT (infrastructure and modes).
2.1.3 Financial savings for individuals
Individuals can potentially save substantial amounts of money from reduced travelling costs.
These include fuel costs, vehicular expenses, license, registration and related taxes as well as
savings on public transport fares.
8
2.1.4 Increased equity for individuals
In addition, NMT can offer more significant benefits to individuals who are more vulnerable to
inequalities and social imbalances (Murguía, 2004; Mackett et al., 2008). This is especially true
for social exclusion that is related to the level of accessibility of individuals (Teunissen et al.,
2014).
In terms of addressing this kind of social exclusion, NMT can assist in creating urban areas that
are more accessible and support higher levels of mobility for those that do not have the same
resources as those with higher incomes (Teunissen et al., 2014; Bogota Declaration, 2011;
Macmillan et al, 2014).
NMT can provide a means of accessing important activities including jobs, education and health
services. This improved accessibility and mobility would help reduce the isolation that is often
associated with the urban poor in inequitable societies. NMT provides a low-cost form of
transport that can link unemployed people with job opportunities. It can also give independence
to those that do not have access to a privately owned vehicle or public transport or who are not,
for whatever reason, able to drive. These road users include people under the legal driving age,
people who are elderly and those who cannot afford a car (Bogota Declaration, 2011).
The improvement of the mobility of these users’ can even result in reduced amounts of trips by
other road users in terms of chauffeuring individuals that cannot drive. A typical example of this
is parents driving children to nearby schools.
9
2.2 Benefits for the community
As more individuals shift to Non-Motorised Transport trips the benefits of their
actions impact on the community / city as an entity.
2.2.1 The reduced demand for motorised transport facilities and related resources
NMT trips help reduce congestion, while efficient NMT infrastructure improves the
attractiveness of public transport modes. Hence further reducing the burden of traffic on the
motorised transportation network (Sinnett et al., 2011; Pucher and Buehler, 2010; Sælensminde,
2004; Litman, 2007).
Reducing the need for increased motorised transport facilities has several benefits including
reduced expenditure of public funds on maintaining and increasing the facilities provided for
motorised transport (Litman, 2007). Communities and cities that are less dependent on
motorised transport are also less dependent on fossil fuels (Sinnett et al., 2011; Litman, 2007).
Cities that are fully dependent on motorised transport for all trips are more vulnerable to changes
in fuel increases which will hinder the sustainability of these cities as oil production slows
(Kenworthy, 2003).
2.2.2 Improved road safety
Another benefit for urban areas is the strong correlation between more Non-Motorised Transport
users and an improvement in road traffic safety (Macmillian, 2014; Mohan, 2002; Litman, 2007).
Sælensminde (2004) notes that traffic accidents are likely to be reduced with increased levels of
Non-Motorised Transport facilities, especially those including Non-Motorised Transport users.
This may be due to a number of reasons, including motorists becoming more sensitive to the
needs of NMT users as well as NMT users becoming more visible and accepted as a viable mode
of transportation (Pucher and Buehler, 2010; Litman, 2007).
Road safety can be viewed in terms of the actual road fatalities / injury levels or in terms of the
perceived levels of road safety felt by users. Perceived road safety, also called insecurity, can
often have a more significant effect on travel behaviour than actual road traffic statistics
(Sælensminde, 2004).
10
2.2.3 Economic benefits for residential and commercial areas
In terms of economic benefits, commercial areas and residential areas have shown to increase in
value after measures have been put in place to increase the usability of NMT modes within the
area. For residential areas this often means that property values increase as the demand increases.
Local business often benefit greatly due to the increased number of pedestrians. Pedestrians
generally spend a significant amount more than other road users.
2.2.4 Societal benefits including
Communities that have higher levels of NMT have better levels of cohesion, equity and
liveability.
11
2.3 Benefits for the environment
Individuals and communities that incorporate Non -Motorised Transport as a
viable mode of transport within their urban environments contribute significantly
to improving the quality of the environment, both locally and globally. This is
mainly through the reduction of motorised transport trips.
Reducing the number and lengths of motorised trips has several benefits for the environment in
terms of both the local context and globally. In developing countries, this is a significant
advantage of NMT as the quality of air and water of many developing countries has degraded
due to the high levels of particles and air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels. In addition,
levels of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions have increased accordingly.
Globally, a reduction of motorised trips and the related dependence on fossil fuels means a more
sustainable use of resources. When comparing NMT to motorised transport, it has significantly
lower uses of non-renewable resources (Litman, 2007). While due to the fundamental nature of
NMT, it does not depend on non-renewable fuels for trips but rather energy from the individual.
Cycling, in particular, is one of the most effective means of travel, in terms of energy efficiency.
12
3. Ex-ante evaluation of Non-Motorised Transport: The need for a
comprehensive tool
Capturing the more comprehensive benefits of Non-Motorised Transport projects
is required to improve the quality of decisions . The tool will help decision makers
fully understand the value of Non-Motorised Transport projects. This will enable
more equitable, socially inclusive decisions being made due to the improved
quality of information generated by the tool .
The implementation of NMT infrastructure and facilities generally depends on the approval
thereof by either a national or local authority. NMT projects or measures are normally in
competition with other transport projects (Hüging et al., 2014).
In order for the quality of the decision to be of a high standard, the decision maker needs to be
fully informed about the potential benefits and costs of the various projects. They should also
have all the potential relevant choices available to them before making a decision as well as
being as to evaluate the different choice options (van Wee, 2011). The ability to predict the value
of projects that improve the NMT infrastructure before it is implemented is an important part of
prioritising and motivating for projects (Hüging et al., 2014).
However, currently there is a lack of adequate tools that can be used by decision-makers to
evaluate projects that aim to improve NMT. This is a hindering factor for these kinds of projects,
as there is a lack of information regarding the potential costs, benefits and the total impacts of the
possible projects (Hüging et al., 2014).
In order for the value of NMT to be estimated accurately, tools need to be created that take into
account not only the factors that can be easily monetised but also the various benefits that are
typically more difficult to include within a traditional CBA model (van Wee, 2011; Hüging et al.,
2014).
Specifically, a tool that is able to do a holistic assessment of the potential social, environmental
and economic benefits of improvements to the NMT infrastructure (Hüging et al., 2014) is
needed. Such a tool’s output could be used by both national and local governmental authorities to
guide them in making appropriate decisions.
13
3.1 Ethical and practical concerns regarding the structure of such a tool
The manner in which the evaluation of projects is conducted can be subjective to the method that
is used and the structure of the tool as well as the indicators that are selected or not selected.
Evaluation of projects should guide authorities in making decisions that result in the most
benefits for the society as a whole. Ideally, the decision taken by a decision maker should be
aligned with that of the public (van Wee, 2011).
In order for this to happen, the fundamental approach of the evaluation needs to be ethically
sound. Vulnerable members of society that are susceptible to being excluded from consideration
in the evaluation as well as equity issues need to be considered when adopting an evaluation
approach (van Wee, 2011).
Distribution effects of projects and measures are also important to consider. Whenever a project
is evaluated the impacts of that project on different groups or regions need to be considered. The
effects, both intentional and unintentional regarding equity issues should be included as best as
possible (van Wee, 2011).
In terms of the ethics of different approaches, the focus was placed on the ethics behind Cost-
Benefit Analysis (CBA) and Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) as these were the predicted
approaches that should be included in the tool that will be developed.
3.1.1 Ethical concerns regarding CBA
CBAs are often assumed to be neutral in nature as the costs and benefits are monetised and are
not weighted as with a MCA approach. However, the CBA approach has been criticized with
regards to how ethical it is.
Equity issues are often ignored within a CBA approach. Certain benefits and costs that are
monetised, such as time-savings, are often not without bias favouring a certain income group or
group within the society.
In many cases, CBAs are not considered to be democratic. Road users have different
“willingness to pay” (WTP) and “value of time” (VOT), which fundamentally skew the results of
the CBA in favour of those that have more financial means than those that do not (van Wee,
2011).
14
CBAs are also often criticized for not including the costs to the environment, the climate or other
species but only really consider the benefits and costs for humans. Absolute levels are also
ignored in the CBA approach and only the changes due to the project in implemented measure
are considered. This is a critical aspect of CBA as it does not alert to something that is below
what would be considered to be a human right or of appropriate ethics (van Wee, 2011).
In terms of understanding the needs and wants of the public, CBA is not a good substitute for
public deliberation. CBA is an inadequate approach in terms of addressing equitable
participation, distribution justice and the inclusion of non-quantifiable factors (van Wee, 2011).
3.2 Data in a developing world context
The availability of data and the reliability thereof is one of the biggest concerns with conducting
ex-ante evaluation of projects. This is a common issue that faces decision makers as pre-
implementation data and post-implementation data regarding transport but especially non-
motorised transport is not collected.
NMT, in particular, is a challenging form of transport to evaluate as many of the highly
beneficial aspects are considered to be “soft” or are difficult to be monetised in the form of a
CBA.
The various benefits of increasing Non-Motorised Transport are also ignored or overlooked due
to the difficulties in accurately reporting or bench-marking them (Sælensminde, 2004). This
problem is less significant in developed countries as more data is available. However, in
developing countries there are often limited resources that can be made available in order to
address this.
Therefore, considering that the data that may be needed to conduct a comprehensive, holistic
evaluation of Non-Motorised Transport may or may not be available, care should be taken in
developing a tool that is heavily based on data. Assumptions that are used should be done so with
care, especially those that are used from a developed countries perspective.
Cultural and social influences should be considered, however they do not need to be emphasized
in the tool. Pucher and Buehler (2010), indicate that though cultural and social elements are
important in transport behaviour, policies and changes in facilities have shown to be more
15
significant elements in explaining trends in NMT. Social and cultural trends and practices
change over time and can be influenced strongly by policies and the availability of NMT
facilities.
Therefore, in terms of building a holistic tool, the potential benefits of addressing equity and
social issues should be carefully considered in areas that have great social challenges. However,
current deterring factors surrounding NMT should not be over-estimated as this is likely to
change post-implementation.
3.3 The context that this tool could be used within
The contexts in which this tool will be mainly used are developing countries that are
experiencing high levels of urbanisation and development. Challenges regarding social equality,
equity and equal consideration need to be considered (van Wee, 2011). Addressing these
challenges would have a higher beneficial value over a long term than alternatives that do not
address these issues.
16
4. Important aspects of developing an appropriate tool
In order for ethical and justifiable decisions to be made, the tools used to make
these decisions need to incorporate appropriate ethics to ensure that the outputs
are socially fair in nature. This is also true of the selected processes that are used
within the tool.
4.1 CBA and MCA as components within the tool
In terms of developing a tool that will be understood and accepted by national and local
authorities, the inclusion of evaluation approaches that are currently used is important in bridging
the gap between how NMT projects are evaluated and how other forms of transport are evaluated
(Elvik, 1999). This will encourage NMT projects to be considered on a more equal footing than
it currently is (Hüging et al., 2014).
4.2 Potential Key Performance Indicators for Tool
The selection of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) is crucial to the success of the tool and will
be tailored in terms of what data can be expected to be available in a developing countries’
context. The KPIs will also be selected in terms of those that will best reflect the different key
benefits of NMT infrastructure.
Indicators could be considered in two groups. The first group are indicators that will change
mainly because of the increase in NMT usage. While the second group of indicators could be
those that change due to the reduction of motorised trips. There are some that form part of both;
however most can be classified as one or the other. Figure 1 below shows a selection of impacts
that could then be linked to indicators to evaluate the potential benefits of NMT projects based
on Elvik (1999).
17
Figure 1: List of potential impacts of measures to improve safety and/ or mobility for pedestrains and cyclists (Elvik,
1999)
Below are various indicators that could be selected to evaluate the potential impact that a project
could have on an urban area, separate in terms of what kind of benefit these indicators are likely
to reflect. Several sources have been used to compile this list.
4.2.1 Health Indicators
Indicator Unit / Measure
Traffic accident fatalities / injuries
(Sælensminde, 2004)
Fatalities per 100 000 persons
Serious injuries per 100 000 persons
Value of Life ( US Dollars)
Short-term absence (assumed a reduction of
1%) (Sælensminde, 2004)
Lost days of productivity (US Dollars)
Premature mortality (include risk reductions of
four types of severe diseases: cancer (five
Fatalities per 100 000 persons
Value of Life ( US Dollars)
18
specific types), high blood pressure, type-2
diabetes, musculosketal ailments))
(Sælensminde, 2004)
Cost to welfare due to identified diseases and
road traffic accidents (Sælensminde, 2004)
Cost to government (US Dollars)
Cost of insecurity(Sælensminde, 2004) Cost per person per km (US Dollars)
(assumed motorised trip taken instead of Non-
Motorised trip)
4.2.2 Environmental Indicators
Indicator Unit / Measure
CO2-emissions (Sælensminde, 2004) Tons of CO2 saved
Local emissions to air (Sælensminde, 2004) Price per km per type of vehicle (car vs.
heavy vehicle)
Noise pollution (Sælensminde, 2004) Price per km per type of vehicle (car vs.
heavy vehicle)
Air / water pollution (TAG, 2014) Price per km per type of vehicle (car vs.
heavy vehicle)
Barrier costs related to motorised traffic
(Sælensminde, 2004)
Cost per person per km (US Dollars)
4.2.3 Social Indicators
Indicator Unit / Measure
Percentage of income spent on
transport (Teunissen et al., 2014)
Passenger comfort (TAG, 2014)
Accessibility (TAG, 2014)
19
Affordability (TAG, 2014)
4.2.4 Economic Indicators
Indicator Unit / Measure
Costs of infrastructure (Sælensminde, 2004)
Cost of trip (Sælensminde, 2004)
Cost of parking (Sælensminde, 2004)
Cost of fuel (Sælensminde, 2004)
Congestion (Sælensminde, 2004)
Mode split of trips (Kenworthy, 2003)
20
5. Ex-ante evaluation tools for NMT assessment
Multi criteria analysis (MCA) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) provide systematic
approaches to estimate the strengths and weaknesses of transport alternatives
and determine a ranking of preferences among the available options.
The previous chapter summarized the need for a comprehensive ex-ante evaluation tool and
discussed various ethical and practical concerns with the different tools. This chapter introduces
two main approaches to ex-ante evaluation for NMT projects.
5.1 Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA)
MCA is a tool for determining an optimal option from a limited set of options, when significant
environmental, social and economic impacts need to be taken into account (Beria, Maltese &
Mariotti, 2012). It for example accounts also for stakeholder opinions and non-monetizable
effects. Typical phases of a MCA are:
1. Definition of the projects or actions to be judged
2. Definition of judgment criteria.
3. Analysis of the impacts of the actions.
4. Judgment of the effects of the actions in terms of each of the selected criteria.
5. Aggregation of judgments.
5.1.1 Analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a type of multi-criteria assessment (MCA) technique for
analysing complex decisions. It is typically a three-stage process comprising of (Beria, Maltese
& Mariotti, 2012):
1. Hierarchy building;
2. Weighting the indicators by pair-wise comparison;
3. Calculating the value for the alternatives.
As such AHP structures the decision problem based on an explicit goal as depicted in Figures 1
and 2.
21
Figure 2: Example of AHP MCA
(Beria, Maltese & Mariotti, 2012)
Figure 3: Pairwise comparison of alternatives
(Beria, Maltese & Mariotti, 2012)
5.1.2 Analytic network process (ANP)
While AHP structures a decision problem into a hierarchy with a goal, decision criteria, and
alternatives (see Figure 1), Analytic Network Process (ANP) structures these elements as a
network, allowing for dealing with interdependencies between criteria for example. As such
22
ANP changes the weighting of criteria based on the degree to which the criteria are met by each
of the alternatives. It often includes an AHP style hierarchy. Each criterion in the ANP has a
computed supermatrix of influence. These supermatrices are then weighted by the priority of the
control criterion. In some cases a control hierarchy is developed for the benefits, costs,
opportunities and risks. The ANP score per alternative are obtained by multiplying:
Equation 1: ANP combination equation
5.1.3 Regime analysis
Regime analysis is a discrete multiple-assessment method that allows to assess projects as well
as policies. The strength of the regime method is that it is able to cope with many types of data
including binary, ordinal, categorical and cardinal (ratio and interval scale) data, while the
method is also able to use mixed data. This applies to both the effects and the weights in the
evaluation of alternatives. The method produces an effect matrix ranking each alternative I
according to each criterion J (Hinloopen & Nijkamp, 1990). Such a matrix as seen below:
Figure 4: Effect matrix for I alternatives and J criteria
(Hinloopen & Nijkamp, 1990)
The higher the rank, the more preferable the alternative under that criterion. As a single
alternative is usually not dominant, the criteria need to be weighted according to their relative
importance. The method then utilises the pairwise comparison methodology of AHP to create a
synthetic index that ranks the alternatives against all others (Nijkamp & Blaas, 1994). In the
pairwise comparison, utilising ordinal numbers, the magnitude of the difference is not relevant
but rather the sign of the first alternative minus the second (i.e. Sii’j = eij – ei’j>0). If Sii’j is
positive then alt. i is preferable for criterion j. If σii’j is equal to the sign of the pairwise
comparison for criterion j and the regime vector rii’ is the set of signs for alt. i and i’, then rii’ =
23
(σii’1,… σii’j)T. The main issue of the regime method is the effect that irrelevant alternatives have
on the ranking process (Hinloopen & Nijkamp, 1990).
5.2 Cost-benefit analysis (CBA)
CBA is a common tool to evaluate the impacts of road infrastructure investments in many
countries (Sælensminde, 2004). It’s based on the monetization of all costs and benefits related to
an investment or policy (Beria, Maltese & Mariotti, 2012). The primary costs, time and
environmental, can be converted to monetary values through direct opportunity cost methods
such as ‘wilingness to pay’ or through substitute markets such as the ‘hedonic prices’ method
(Beria, Maltese & Mariotti, 2012). The costs and benefits are relatively well known, with the
ability to utilise a vast theoretical backing and empirical data from previous projects (van Wee,
2011). The availability of this data, as well as a perceived neutrality of CBA in comparison with
MCA, contributes significantly to its popularity (van Wee, 2011). Although, the costs and
benefits do not often coincide along a projects timeline, which means that an inter-temporal
discount is used to compare future and present costs and benefits.
The core of a CBA is a comparison of trade-offs: the total value of the benefits, in both demand
and social objectives met, must exceed the opportunity cost of the consumed resources (Beria,
Maltese & Mariotti, 2012). If the benefits from NMT infrastructure to society do not exceed the
opportunity cost of using those resources elsewhere, then the project is infeasible. However, the
use of CBA alone is less common when assessing improvement measures for the mobility of
cyclists and pedestrians (Sælensminde, 2004). The reason for this may be the difficulty of
representing some important impacts, such as health benefits and insecurity, in monetary terms
for the CBA to analyse (Sælensminde, 2004).
5.2.1 Structure of a CBA
According to the Department for Transport of the United Kingdom, a Cost-Benefit Analysis is:
‘analysis which quantifies in monetary terms as many of the costs and benefits of a proposal as
feasible, including items for which the market does not provide a satisfactory measure of
economic value.’ (Department for Transport (UK), 2014b:1)
(van Wee, 2011) notes that in a basic CBA, there are three phases, ‘before CBA’, ‘CBA’ and
‘after CBA’. Before the CBA process, a selection method is utilised to assemble a collection of
24
relevant and feasible alternatives (van Wee, 2011). After the CBA is completed, the results are
used, often in parallel with or as input to other evaluations, in the making of the final decision
(van Wee, 2011).
All of the values used in the analysis are represented in monetary terms for a single point in time,
expressed as the Net Present Value (NPV) (Thomopoulos, Grant-Muller & Tight, 2009). The
singular output of a CBA is the Cost-Benefit Ratio (CBR), which numerically demonstrates the
unitary value of benefits accrued from the project per unit of cost (Thomopoulos, Grant-Muller
& Tight, 2009). This output can be easily compared across very diverse alternative options. The
discount rate, used to discount future benefits in order to compare against present costs, can
range from zero to higher than 12% and even small alteration can have significant effects on the
CBR (Thomopoulos, Grant-Muller & Tight, 2009).
5.2.2 Examples of CBA utilisation in NMT infrastructure evaluation
(Cavill et al., 2008) have conducted a systematic review of the economic analyses regarding
cycling and walking improvement that considered health effects. Of the studies included in the
review, 13 were CBAs of walking and/or cycling infrastructure: (see Rutter, 2006; Krag, 2005;
Lind, Hydén & Persson, 2005; Saari, Metsäranta & Tervonen, 2005; Wang et al., 2005;
Foltýnová & Kohlová, 2002; Jones & Eaton, 1994).
Within the confines of the core CBA structure, the studies are very heterogeneous and based on
many different assumptions. Cavill et al. (2008) summarised the Cost-Benefit Ratio (CBR)
outputs of the relevant case studies within the literature into Figure 4. The CBR ranges from -0.4
to 32.5, with a median of 5:1; the duplication of some studies representing multiple cases within
the same study (Cavill et al., 2008). The sign next to the study author expresses the perceived
quality of the study by Cavill et al. (2008), ranging from high quality (++) to low quality (-).
25
Figure 5: Benefit cost ratios for selected studies
(Cavill et al., 2008)
One of the most detailed studies, Sælensminde (2004), utilised a CBA to evaluate walking and
cycling track networks in three Norwegian towns. The CBA was deliberately conservative as to
avoid overestimation and double-counting, and took into account the reduced insecurity and
health benefits associated with improved NMT infrastructure (Sælensminde, 2004). Table 1
summarises the results of the CBA, which used vast and detailed data to monetise the social and
environmental impacts. The unit values of the different benefits were derived from an extensive
archive of governmental and academic studies related to the Norwegian context. Despite the
credibility of the data, a sensitivity analysis was still performed with the extreme values in each
range to gauge the boundaries of possibility for the return on these investments (Sælensminde,
2004).
26
Table 1: Benefits and costs of investments in walking and cycling track networks in three Norwegian towns (Sælensminde,
2004)
5.2.3 Criticism of CBA use for evaluation of NMT infrastructure
Next to the discussion about ethical and practical concerns regarding CBA in chapter 3, there has
been significant criticism of the CBA process and its use in evaluating transport related spatial-
infrastructure projects. A very extensive and detailed review of this literature can be found in the
Ph.D. Thesis of (Mouter, 2014:25); summarised in Table 2 which categorises the articles
according to the element of the CBA that is being criticised. Additionally, (Mouter, 2014)
outlines and ranks the substantive problems within the CBA process based upon Dutch best
practice and case studies. This section will highlight some of the most significant criticisms that
have been levelled against its use in NMT infrastructure investment evaluation.
27
Table 2: Overview of literature on substantive problems with CBA in transport, categorised by element of criticism
(Mouter, 2014)
In France, the CBA process has been accused of failing to account for the knowledge produced
through the participation process of various stakeholders (Damart & Roy, 2009). Damart & Roy
(2009) determined that CBA, alone, is not compatible with public participation or constructive
discourse; two key elements in the acceptance of publically-funded projects. They suggest that
28
changes in the CBA structure are needed to accrue the legitimacy derived from collaborative
public debate while maintaining the rationality of the original decision-making process (Damart
& Roy, 2009).
5.3 Methodological best practice
Some of the tools and guidelines in the literature only appraise certain aspects of a transport
intervention. This section reviews the current best practice for the valuation of different types of
impact and impact indicators.
5.3.1 Economic: Value of time
The Value of Time (VOT) represents the monetary value of shorter commuting times. The VOT
equation, Equation 3, uses half of the number of induced users as their travel time savings are not
consistent, ranging between zero and the predicted time saving (van Wee, 2011). It is assumed
that the users are distributed equally along this linear time saving curve, meaning the average
time saving is half of the predicted value (van Wee, 2011).
(
)
Equation 2: Benefit calculation for Value of Time
(van Wee, 2011)
5.3.2 Health benefits: Reduced risk of mortality
There has been a significant amount of research into the relationship between increased physical
activity through NMT mode choice and increased health benefits (see Rutter et al., 2013;
Boarnet, Greenwald & McMillan, 2008; Cavill et al., 2008; Sælensminde, 2004). According to
the literature, the Health economic assessment tools (HEAT) for walking and cycling, created by
the World Health Organisation, is the most detailed and extensively used tool for appraising the
health benefits of NMT infrastructure (World Health Organisation, 2014).
HEAT uses the relative risk of mortality of regular cyclists and pedestrians in comparison to the
average citizen to estimate health benefits (World Health Organisation, 2014). For example, if a
cyclist spends 100 minutes per week cycling, for 52 weeks, they have a relative risk of 0.89. This
means that the cyclist is 11% less likely to die from any cause than the average commuter, in any
given year. A cyclist that spends 200 minutes per week cycling is 22% less likely to die, given a
29
linear relationship. However, the perceived benefits of this physical activity are capped to avoid
inflated values at the upper end of the range. Figure 6 summarises the basic values that are used
for the monetary evaluation of health benefits related to increased walking and cycling.
Figure 6: Summary of basic values used for HEAT
(World Health Organisation, 2014)
This change in relative risk of mortality is then factored by the size of the population that stands
to benefit, the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) and other general parameters. These parameters
include the intervention effect; the build-up period, the mortality rate, the discount rate and a
time frame over which the benefits are to be calculated. The output of HEAT is the net present
value of mean annual benefit, which can be used as an input for a CBA or integrated CB-MCA.
5.3.3 Environmental: Climate change mitigation
The Transportation Emissions Evaluation Model for Projects (TEEMP) has been developed by
the Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) and the Institute for Transportation and
Development Policy (ITDP) (ITDP, 2011). The tool estimates the reduction in Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) emissions resulting from a transport intervention project. TEEMP includes direct, direct
post-project and indirect GHG reductions due to the intervention. Direct reductions in GHG
emissions are an output of the specific investments and activities related to the project, and
contained within its scope of reference. Direct post-project reductions result from ongoing
mechanisms related to the project and indirect reductions are achieved through the positive
perception of the project and justification for replication (ITDP, 2011).
For NMT projects, a baseline is set assuming ‘Business as usual’ and will be compared against
the Improvement scenario. For cities in which data is available, the full model is applied and all
possible emissions savings are calculated. These savings are predominantly dependent on the
modal shift achieved, trip length and the stream speeds. The key emissions used as indicators for
comparison are Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Particulate Matter (PM) and Nitrous Oxides (NOx). For
30
cities in which data is not available, an alternative Sketch Analysis tool uses data from projects
in Rio de Janeiro and Bogota too estimate possible GHG reductions (ITDP, 2011). The output of
the model, GHG reductions, can be monetised and fed into a CBA analysis or presented in
quantitative form within an impact-summary table, as is done by the WebTAG system.
(Massink et al., 2011) use the fact that cycling is a zero-emission transport mode to estimate the
CO2 that would have been created had it not been an option. The opportunity cost of the avoided
CO2 emissions is calculated by substituting the cycling trips with those of the most likely
alternative mode (Massink et al., 2011). This accumulation of avoided emissions is based on
current modal splits, cycling’s inter-modal competition and CO2 emissions factors. Under the
assumption that these avoided emissions are transferable for carbon tax credits, (Massink et al.,
2011) suggest that a monetary value can be placed on the environmental benefits of cycling. In a
case study of Bogota, Colombia, the 3.3% mode share of cycling is calculated to have a climate
value of 55,115 avoided tons of CO2 per year and an economic value of between 1 and 7 million
US dollars’ worth of carbon credits (Massink et al., 2011).
5.3.4 Social: Security, severance and journey quality impacts
With access to sufficient amounts of data, many social impacts of an NMT project can be
monetised for use in a CBA (Department for Transport (UK), 2014a). However, even using the
data rich WebTAG system, the security, severance and journey quality impacts are not
monetised and, instead, analysed qualitatively. The security impacts relate to the vulnerability
that the user has to encountering crime during a trip. The severance impacts describe the effects
that an NMT project might have on separating residents from facilities and services. The
measure for severance is hindrance to pedestrian movement, which means that, apart from
isolated cycling infrastructure, NMT projects would have very few or no severance effects.
Journey quality is an indicator of the real or perceived social and physical environment that is
experienced while making a trip (Department for Transport (UK), 2014a). It is an often
undervalued impact of transport projects as travel is an induced demand, although, it is
exceptionally important to users when notably absent. The WebTAG system uses a seven point
grading scale to evaluate the overall significance of each of these three impacts. Analysis is done
for each one based on specific criteria to first determine if the effect is ‘Beneficial’, ‘Neutral’ or
‘Adverse’ (Department for Transport (UK), 2014a). The Beneficial and adverse impacts are then
31
further categorised as either ‘Slight’, ‘Moderate’ or ‘Large’ (Department for Transport (UK),
2014a). These evaluations are done for scenarios with and without the project to determine
relative effects and each indicator within the impact assessment is given a ‘High’, ‘Medium’ or
‘Low’ value of importance. Finally, the number of users affected is estimated and the overall
impact assessment score is approximated (Department for Transport (UK), 2014a). Integrated
CB-MCA
A comparison between the features of the two methods discussed before has been summarised in
Figure 5. These different features sometimes lead to opposing results, even on uncomplicated,
urban scale road infrastructure projects (Tudela, Akiki & Cisternas, 2006). In that specific case,
the alternative suggested by the MCA was chosen, however, a combination of CBA and MCA
was proposed (Tudela, Akiki & Cisternas, 2006). There have been several combinations of CBA
and MCA utilised in the evaluation of transport alternatives due to the inherent flaws in each
individual process (Beria, Maltese & Mariotti, 2012).
Figure 7: Summary of CBA and MC(D)A features
(Browne & Ryan, 2011)
5.4 Examples of CB-MCA utilisation in NMT infrastructure evaluation
An advanced and complex system has been built by the United Kingdom’s Department for
Transport; specifically the Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) unit (Department for Transport
(UK), 2014c). The system is comprised of transport appraisal guidelines and a set of spreadsheet
32
based tools (Department for Transport (UK), 2014c). Viable alternatives are developed through a
screening process, the Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST), using minimum standards to
remove options that may be economically favourable but are too socially or environmentally
detrimental. Where possible, the impacts of implementing the alternatives are quantified and
monetised. These feed into a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) tool and a Cost-Benefit Ratio (CBR)
is calculated. An accompanying ‘Data Book’ supplies vast amounts of geographically specific
data for use in this process. However, the detail and extent of this data is unlikely to be found in
most developing cities.
For impacts that are difficult to monetise, or for which the required data is not available, the
more qualitative MCA technique can be used. The distribution of the impacts due to transport
interventions across different social groups are also taken into account. A Distributional Impact
(DI) appraisal is conducted for each of the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to determine if
any particular group is being unfairly affected or if significant impacts are affecting any of the
vulnerable groups within society. The quantitative and qualitative results from the evaluation of
each of the KPIs are summarised into the ‘Appraisal summary table’ (AST), which is the final
output that assists with the decision-making process. An AST is created for each alternative and
no specific alternative is suggested or recommended. Within the WebTAG system is an appraisal
tool designed for appraising ‘Active Travel’ (NMT) infrastructure and promotion schemes
(Department for Transport (UK), 2014a).
Hüging (2014) is developing a simplified approach to the holistic assessment of urban mobility
measures. The approach is primarily based on the MCA methodology, but accounts for the
integration of CBA features when the required data is available. The steps in the process for this
new approach have been summarised in Table 2.
Table 3: Steps for the simplified, holistic approach to transport intervention assessment (Hüging, 2014)
33
In this process, a CBA is optional, but can be performed in parallel to the overall analysis of the
KPIs. If the amount of data available for each alternative is equal then the Cost-Benefit Ratio
(CBR) is still valuable for comparative evaluation. Step 4 of the process describes the
normalisation of all performance figures: monetary, quantitative (non-monetary) and qualitative.
The normalisation occurs using a maximum score approach. As an example, the score for
Alternative A for Criterion 1 (C1) is based upon its original performance figure ( 1( )), the
largest performance figure for C1 ( 1( )) and a scaling factor (𝐹 ) of 10 for ease of
calculation (Hüging, 2014). These values are used in Equation
𝐹
Equation 3: Normalisation of performance figures
(Hüging, 2014)
34
Step 5, criterion weighting, is performed according to the conventional procedure associated with
an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) MCA. The MCA will calculate an overall score for each
alternative which is then communicated to the decision makers. Hüging (2014) posit that the
single output from an MCA or CBA often doesn’t effectively communicate the true impacts of
each alternative to the decision-makers. Hüging (2014) suggest that the MCA score should be
accompanied by the optional CBR and a description of the absolute impacts in an impact-
summary table similar to the AST produced by the WebTAG system.
35
6. References
Ackerman, F. and Heinzerling., 2002. Pricing the Priceless. Cost-Benefit Analysis of
Environmental Protection (Washington, DC: Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy
Institute, Georgetown University Law Center).
Annema, J.A., Koopmans, C., Van Wee, B., 2007. Evaluating transport infrastructure
investments: the Dutch experience with a standardized approach. Transport Reviews 27 (2),
125-150.
Beukers, E., Bertolini., Te Brömmelstroet, M., 2012. Why cost-benefit analysis is perceived as a
problematic tool for assessment of transport plans: a process perspective. Transportation
Research Part A 46 (1), 68-78.
Beria, P., Maltese, I. & Mariotti, I. 2012. Multicriteria versus Cost Benefit Analysis: a
comparative perspective in the assessment of sustainable mobility. European Transport
Research Review. 4(3): 137-152.
Bogota Declaration: Sustainable Transport Objectives, Foro de Transporte Sostenible para
America Latina, 24th June 2011.
Börjesson, M., Fosgerau, M., Algers., 2012. On the income elasticity of the value of travel time.
Transportation Research Part A 46 (2), 368-377.
Brathen, S. and Hervik, A., 1997. Strait crossings and economic development: Developing
economic impact assessment by means of ex post analyses. Transport Policy 4 (4), 193-200.
Bristow, A.L. and Nellthorp, J., 2000. Appraisal of transport projects in the European Union.
Transport Policy 7 (1), 51-60.
Browne, D. & Ryan, L. 2011. Comparative analysis of evaluation techniques for transport
policies. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 31(3): 226-233.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.11.001.
Cantarelli, C.C., Flyvbjerg, B., Molin, E.J.E., Van Wee, B., 2010. Cost overruns in large-scale
transport infrastructure projects: explanations and their theoretical embeddedness. European
Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 10 (1), 5–18.
Cardell, N., Dunbar, F.C., 1980. Measuring the societal impacts of automobile downsizing.
Transportation Research Part A: General 14 (5-6), 423-434.
Cavill, N., Kahlmeier, S., Rutter, H., Racioppi, F. & Oja, P. 2008. Economic analyses of
transport infrastructure and policies including health effects related to cycling and walking:
a systematic review. Transport Policy. 15(5): 291-304.
36
Damart, R. and Roy, B. 2009. The uses of cost-benefit analysis in public transportation decision
making in France. Transport Policy 16 (4), 200-212.
Department for Transport (UK) 2014a. Transport Analysis Guidance: Active Mode Appraisal.
London, UK: Department for Transport.
Department for Transport (UK) 2014b. Transport Analysis Guidance: Cost Benefit Analysis.
London, UK: Department for Transport.
Department for Transport (UK) 2014c. Transport Analysis Guidance: The Transport Appraisal
Process. London, UK: Department for Transport.
Eijgenraam, C. J. J., Koopmans, C.C., Tang, P.J.G., Verster, A.C.P., 2000. Evaluation of
Infrastructural Projects; Guide for cost-benefit analysis, Sections I and II, CPB, The Hague,
NEI (Changed Name to ECORYS), Rotterdam.
Eliasson, J. and Lundberg, M., 2012. Do Cost-Benefit Analyses Influence Transport Investment
Decisions? Experiences from the Swedish Transport Investment Plan 2010-21. Transport
reviews 32 (1), 29-48.
Erlandson, D.A., Harris, E.L., Skipper, B.L., Allen, S.D., 1993. Doing Naturalistic Inquiry: A
Guide to Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Flyvbjerg, B., Skamris Holm, M.K., Buhl, S.L., 2003. How common and how large are cost
overruns in transport infrastructure projects?. Transport Reviews 23 (?), 71-88.
Flyvbjerg, B., 2005. Measuring inaccuracy in travel demand forecasting: methodological
considerations regarding ramp up and sampling. Transportation Research Part A 39 (6),
522-530.
Flyvbjerg, B., Skamris Holm, M.K., Buhl, S.L., 2005. How (in)accurate are demand forecasts in
public works projects? The case of transportation. Journal of the American Planning
Association 71, 131-146.
Foltýnová, H. & Kohlová, M.B. 2002. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Cycling Infrastructure: A Case
Study of Pilsen.
Forkenbrock, D.J., 2001. Comparison of external costs of rail and truck freight Transportation.
Transportation Research Part A 35 (4), 321-337.
Fosgerau, M., 2007. Using non-parametrics to specify a model to measure the value of travel
time. Transportation Research Part A 41 (9). 842-856.
Gao, S., Frejinger, E., Ben-Akiva, M., 2011. Cognitive cost in route choice with real-time
information: an exploratory analysis. Transportation Research Part A 45 (4), 916-926.
37
Grant-Muller, S., Mackie, P., Nellthorp, J., Pearman, A., 2001. Economic appraisal of European
transport projects – The state of the art revisited. Transport Reviews 21 (2), 237-261.
Hanna Hüging, H., Glensor, K., and Lah, O., (2014), Need for a holistic assessment of urban
mobility measures: Review of existing methods and design of a simplified approach,
International Scientific Conference on Mobility and Transport Sustainable Mobility in
Metropolitan Regions
Hansson, S.-O., 2007. Philosophical problems in cost-benefit analysis. Economics and
Philosophy 23 (2), 163-183.
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 28 (2), 109-118.
Hayashi, Y., and Morisugi, H., 2000. International comparison of background concept and
methodology of transportation project appraisal. Transport Policy 7 (1), 73-88.
Hollander, Y., 2006. Direct versus indirect models for the effects of unreliability. Transportation
Research Part A 40 (9), 699-711.
Hensher, D., 2006. Towards a practical method to establish comparable value of travel time
savings from stated choice experiments with differing design dimensions. Transportation
Research Part A 40 (10), 829-840.
Hinloopen, E. & Nijkamp, P. 1990. Qualitative multiple criteria choice analysis. Quality and
Quantity. 24(1): 37-56.
Holsti, O.R., 1969. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Holz-Rau, C. and Scheiner, J., 2011. Safety and travel time in cost-benefit analysis: A sensitivity
analysis for North Rhine-Westphalia. Transport Policy 18 (2), 336-346.
Hüging, H. 2014. Need for a holistic assessment of urban mobility measures–Review of existing
methods and design of a simplified approach. International Scientific Conference on
Mobility and Transport. 19/05/14. Munich, Germany: Technical University of Munich.
Hyard., 2012. Cost-benefit analysis according to Sen: An application in the evaluation of
transport infrastructure in France. Transportation Research A 46 (4), 707-719.
ITDP 2011. Manual for Calculating Greenhouse Gas Benefits of Global Environment Facility
Transportation Projects. New York: Institute for Transportation and Development Policy.
Jones, T.F. & Eaton, C.B. 1994. Cost-benefit analysis of walking to prevent coronary heart
disease. Archives of Family Medicine. 3(8): 703-710.
38
Kenworthy, J.R. (2003) Transport energy use and greenhouse gases in urban passenger transport
systems: A study of 84 global cities in: International Sustainability Conference, 17 - 19
September, Fremantle, Western Australia
Krag, T. 2005. Cost benefit analysis of cycling–Denmark. CBA of Cycling, Nordic Council of
Ministers, Stockholm, Norway.
Krippendorff, K., 2004. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Sage Publications
Ltd. London.
Lee Jr., D. B., 2000. Methods for evaluation of transportation projects in the USA. Transport
Policy 7 (1), 41-50.
Lind, G., Hydén, C. & Persson, U. 2005. Benefits and costs of bicycle infrastructure in Sweden.
CBA of Cycling. 20-25.
Litman, T.A., (2007), Economic Value of Walkability, Transportation Research Record 1828,
Transportation Research Board, (2003), pages 3-11
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., Bracken, C.C., 2002. Content analysis in mass communication:
Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research 28,
587-604.
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., Bracken, C.C., 2004. Practical Resources for Assessing and
Reporting Intercoder Reliability in Content Analysis Research. Retrieved April 2008, 2004.
Mackie, P., Preston, J., 1998. Twenty-one sources of error and bias in transport project appraisal.
Transport Policy 5 (1), 1-7.
Mackie, P., 2010. Cost-Benefit Analysis in Transport: A UK Perspective. International Transport
Forum, Mexico.
Mackie, P and Worsley, T., (2013), International Comparisons of Transport Appraisal Practice:
Overview Report, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, April 2013.
Macmillan, A., Connor, J., Witten, K., Kearns, R., Rees, D., Woodward, A., (2014), The societal
costs and benefits of commuter bicycling: simulating the effects of specific policies using
system dynamics modelling, Environment Health Perspective 122, pages 335–344
Mandell, S., 2011. Carbon Emission values in cost benefit analyses. Transport Policy 18 (6),
888-892.
Massink, R., Zuidgeest, M., Rijnsburger, J., Sarmiento, O.L. & Van Maarseveen, M. 2011. The
climate value of cycling. Natural Resources Forum. Wiley Online Library. 100.
39
Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment., 2011. Research Agenda Cost-Benefit Analysis
(In Dutch: Ontwikkelagenda OEI). The Hague, December 2011.
Miser, H.J., Quade, E.S., 1988. Handbook of systems analysis: craft issues and procedural
choices. Elsevier science Publishing Co., Inc.
Morisugi, H., 2000. Evaluation methodologies of transportation projects in Japan. Transport
Policy 7 (1), 35-40.
Mouter, N. 2014. Cost-Benefit Analysis in Practice. Ph.D. Technische Universiteit Delft, TRAIL
Research School.
Murguía, R.O., (2004), Share the Road: Design Guidelines for Non-Motorised Transport in
Africa, UNEP, Kenya.
Naess, P., 2006. Cost-benefit analysis of transportation investments. Neither critical nor realistic.
Journal of critical realism 5 (1), 32-60.
Neuendorf, K.A., 2002. The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nguyen-Hoang, P. and Yeung, R., 2010. What is paratransport worth?. Transportation Research
Part A 44 (10), 841-853.
Nijkamp, P. & Blaas, E. 1994. Impact assessment and evaluation in transportation planning.
Springer.
Nordhaus, W.D., 2007. A review of the Stern review on the economics of climate change.
Journal of economic literature. Vol XLV, 686-702.
Odeck, J., 1996. Ranking of regional road investment in Norway. Transportation 23 (2), 123-
140.
Odgaard, T., Kelly, C., Laird, J., 2005. Current practice in project appraisal in Europe, in:
Proceedings of the European Transport Conference. 3-5 October, Strasbourg, Association
for European Transport.
Peer, S., Koopmans, C.C., Verhoef, E.T., 2012. Prediction of travel time variability for cost-
benefit analysis. Transportation Research Part A 46 (1), 79-90.
Priemus, H., 2010. Decision-making on Mega-projects: Drifting on Political Discontinuity and
Market Dynamics. European journal of transport and infrastructure research. 10 (1), 19-29.
Pucher, J., and Buehler, R., (2010), The role of walking and cycling in advancing healthy and
sustainable urban areas, Built Environment, Volume 36, No. 4, pages 391-414
40
Quinet, E., 2000. Evaluation methodologies of transportation projects in France. Transport
Policy 7, 27-34.
Riffe, D., Lacy, S., Fico, F.G., 2005. Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content
analysis in research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rotaris, L. Danielis, R., Marcucci, E., Massiani, J., 2010. The urban road pricing scheme to curb
pollution in Milan, Italy: Description, impacts and preliminary cost-benefit analysis
assessment. Transportation Research Part A 44 (5), 359-375.
Rothengatter, W., 2000. Evaluation of infrastructure investments in Germany. Transport Policy 7
(1), 17-25.
Rutter, H. 2006. Mortality benefits of cycling in London. London: Transport for London.
Saari, R., Metsäranta, H. & Tervonen, J. 2005. Finnish guidelines for the assessment of walking
and cycling projects. CBA of Cycling, Copenhagen.
Sælensminde, K. 2004. Cost–benefit analyses of walking and cycling track networks taking into
account insecurity, health effects and external costs of motorized traffic. Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 38(8): 593-606.
Sager , T. and Ravlum I.-A., 2005. The political relevance of planners’ analysis: the case of a
parliamentary standing committee. Planning Theory 4 (1), 33-65. Sayers, T.M., Jessop,
A.T., Hills, P.J., 2003. Multi-criteria evaluation of transport options-flexible, transparent
and user-friendly?. Transport Policy 10 (2), 93-105.
Salling, K.B., Banister, D., 2009. Assessment of large transport infrastructure project: the CBA-
DK model. Transportation Research Part A 43 (9), 800-813.
Sen, A.K., 2000. The discipline of cost-benefit analysis. The journal of Legal Studies 29 (2),
931-952.
Ševcíková, H., Raftery, A.E., Waddell, P.A., 2011. Uncertain benefits: application of Bayesian
melding to the Alaskan way viaduct in Seattle. Transportation Research Part A 45 (6), 540-
553.
Stern, N., S. Peters, V. Bakhshi, A. Bowen, C. Cameron, S. Catovsky, D. Crane, S. Cruickshank,
S. Dietz, N. Edmonson, S.-L. Garbett, L. Hamid, G. Hoffman, D. Ingram, B. Jones, N.
Patmore, H. Radcliffe, R. Sathiyarajah, M. Stock, C. Taylor, T. Vernon, H. Wanjie, and D.
Zenghelis (2006), Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change, HM Treasury,
London.
Teunissen, T., Olga Sarmiento, O., Zuidgeest, M., and Mark Brussel, (2014), Mapping Equality
in Access: The Case of Bogotá's Sustainable Transportation Initiatives, International Journal
of Sustainable Transportation.
41
Thomopoulos, N., Grant-Muller, S. & Tight, M. 2009. Incorporating equity considerations in
transport infrastructure evaluation: Current practice and a proposed methodology.
Evaluation and Program Planning. 32(4): 351-359.
Tsamboulas, D.A., 2007. A tool for prioritizing multinational transport infrastructure
investments. Transport Policy 14 (1), 11-26.
Tudela, A., Akiki, N., Cisternas, R., 2006. Comparing the output of cost benefit and multi-
criteria analysis: an application to urban transport investments. Transportation Research Part
A 40 (5), 414-423.
Turner, R.K., 1979. Cost-Benefit analysis – a critique. Omega 7 (5), 411-419.
United Nations. 2010. World Urbanization Prospects - The 2009 Revision. New York City.
van Wee, B. 2011. Transport and ethics: ethics and the evaluation of transport policies and
projects. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Vickerman, R., 2000. Evaluation methodologies for transport projects in the United Kingdom.
Transport Policy 7 (1), 7-16.
Vickerman, R., 2007. Cost-benefit analysis and large-scale infrastructure projects: state of the art
and challenges. Environment and Planning B 34, 598-610.
Verhoef, E., 1994. External effects and social costs of road transport. Transportation Research
Part A 28 (4), 273-287.
Wang, G., Macera, C.A., Scudder-Soucie, B., Schmid, T., Pratt, M. & Buchner, D. 2005. A cost-
benefit analysis of physical activity using bike/pedestrian trails. Health Promotion Practice.
6(2): 174-179. DOI:6/2/174 [pii].
Wardman, M., 2004. Public transport values of time. Transport Policy 11 (4), 363-377.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic Content Analysis, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA.
World Health Organisation 2014. Health economic assessment tools (HEAT) for walking and for
cycling. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO. References from Table 2 (Mouter, 2014)
van Wee, B., 2006. Large Infrastructure Project: The Quality of Demand Forecasts and Cost
Estimations. A Review of Literature. Environment and Planning B 34, 611-625.
van Wee, B., 2012. How suitable is CBA for the ex-ante evaluation of transport projects and
policies? A discussion from the perspective of ethics. Transport Policy 19 (1), 1-7.
Weitzman, M., 1998. Why the far-distant future should be discounted at its lowest possible rate.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36, 201-108.
42
Williams, A., 1972. CBA: Bastard Science and/or Insidious Poison in the Body Politick? In J.N.
Wolfe (ed.) Cost-Benefit and Cost Effectiveness, pp. 30-63.
Willis, K.G., Garrod, G.D., Harvey, D. R., 1998. A review of cost-benefit analysis as applied to
the evaluation of new road proposals in the UK. Transportation Research Part D 3 (3), 141-
156.
