IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v172y2025ics0967070x25003087.html

Identifying transport policy priorities through a meta-analysis of cost-benefit analysis in the Netherlands and Flanders

Author

Listed:
  • Bothof, Simon
  • te Boveldt, Geert
  • Boussauw, Kobe

Abstract

In this paper we assess cost-benefit analysis (CBA) reports and outcomes for transport projects in the Netherlands and Flanders between 2010 and 2024. CBA has been used extensively to evaluate potential investments in transport infrastructure, and to compare options. We investigate which factors contribute most to the Net Present Value (NPV) of CBAs and to what extent social, ecological and economic criteria are relevant to the outcomes of the evaluation. Results show that on average 80 % of monetized effects stem from economic criteria, whereas social (15 %) and ecological (5 %) criteria contribute far less to the outcome. This is also reflected in the finding that for 90 % of the cases the exclusion of social and ecological criteria does not change the outcome of the NPV calculation (from positive to negative, or vice-versa). Although sustainability is becoming increasingly important in the discourse around transport infrastructure, both social and ecological aspects of sustainability have only a minor impact on the NPVs and outcomes of CBAs for transport projects in the two territories and the time period under investigation. This implies that most transport investments do not specifically target sustainability issues, or that CBA does not reflect these considerations.

Suggested Citation

  • Bothof, Simon & te Boveldt, Geert & Boussauw, Kobe, 2025. "Identifying transport policy priorities through a meta-analysis of cost-benefit analysis in the Netherlands and Flanders," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:172:y:2025:i:c:s0967070x25003087
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2025.103765
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X25003087
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tranpol.2025.103765?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katharina Biely & Dries Maes & Steven Passel, 2018. "The idea of weak sustainability is illegitimate," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 223-232, February.
    2. Jan Anne Annema & Carl Koopmans, 2015. "The practice of valuing the environment in cost-benefit analyses in transport and spatial projects," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(9), pages 1635-1648, September.
    3. A. Markandya & D. W. Pearce, 1998. "Environmental sustainability and cost–benefit analysis," Chapters, in: The Economics of Environment and Development, chapter 4, pages 54-64, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Jochem de Vries, 2015. "Planning and Culture Unfolded: The Cases of Flanders and the Netherlands," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(11), pages 2148-2164, November.
    5. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/5l6uh8ogmqildh09h4687h53k is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Turner, RK, 1979. "Cost-benefit analysis--a critique," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 7(5), pages 411-419.
    7. Karel Martens & Floridea Di Ciommo, 2017. "Travel time savings, accessibility gains and equity effects in cost–benefit analysis," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(2), pages 152-169, March.
    8. Lind, Robert C, 1995. "Intergenerational equity, discounting, and the role of cost-benefit analysis in evaluating global climate policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(4-5), pages 379-389.
    9. Flyvbjerg, Bent & Bester, Dirk W., 2021. "The Cost-Benefit Fallacy: Why Cost-Benefit Analysis Is Broken and How to Fix It," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 395-419, October.
    10. 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).
    11. Joseph Stiglitz & Amartya K. Sen & Jean-Paul Fitoussi, 2009. "The measurement of economic performance and social progress revisited: Reflections and Overview," Working Papers hal-01069384, HAL.
    12. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/5l6uh8ogmqildh09h4687h53k is not listed on IDEAS
    13. 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.
    14. Joseph E. Stiglitz & Amartya Sen & Jean-Paul Fitoussi, 2009. "The measurement of economic performance and social progress revisited," Documents de Travail de l'OFCE 2009-33, Observatoire Francais des Conjonctures Economiques (OFCE).
    15. 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.
    16. Florio, Massimo & Morretta, Valentina & Willak, Witold, 2018. "Cost-Benefit Analysis and European Union Cohesion Policy: Economic Versus Financial Returns in Investment Project Appraisal," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 147-180, April.
    17. Clive L. Spash, 2008. "Deliberative Monetary Valuation and the Evidence for a New Value Theory," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(3), pages 469-488.
    18. Karen Lucas & Bert Wee & Kees Maat, 2016. "A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 473-490, May.
    19. Jones, Peter & Lucas, Karen, 2012. "The social consequences of transport decision-making: clarifying concepts, synthesising knowledge and assessing implications," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 4-16.
    20. 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.
    21. Abelson, Peter, 2020. "A Partial Review of Seven Official Guidelines for Cost-Benefit Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 272-293, July.
    22. Ekins, Paul & Simon, Sandrine & Deutsch, Lisa & Folke, Carl & De Groot, Rudolf, 2003. "A framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2-3), pages 165-185, March.
    23. 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)

    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. Ryan, Jean & Martens, Karel, 2023. "Defining and implementing a sufficient level of accessibility: What’s stopping us?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    2. Lin, Joanne Yuh-Jye & Jenelius, Erik & Cebecauer, Matej & Rubensson, Isak & Chen, Cynthia, 2023. "The equity of public transport crowding exposure," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    3. Werner, Hans & Carrasco, Juan Antonio & Tiznado-Aitken, Ignacio & Vecchio, Giovanni, 2025. "Incorporating principles of justice in transport evaluation: A case of suburban train projects in Santiago de Chile," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    4. Linovski, Orly & Manaugh, Kevin & Baker, Dwayne Marshall, 2022. "The route not taken: Equity and transparency in unfunded transit proposals," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 77-84.
    5. Pearson, Leonie J. & Kashima, Yoshihisa & Pearson, Craig J., 2012. "Clarifying protected and utilitarian values of critical capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 206-210.
    6. 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.
    7. Luis A. Guzman & Daniel Oviedo & Rafael Cardona, 2018. "Accessibility Changes: Analysis of the Integrated Public Transport System of Bogotá," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-15, October.
    8. Espinoza-Delgado, José & Silber, Jacques, 2018. "Multi-dimensional poverty among adults in Central America and gender differences in the three I’s of poverty: Applying inequality sensitive poverty measures with ordinal variables," MPRA Paper 88750, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Cavoli, Clemence, 2021. "Accelerating sustainable mobility and land-use transitions in rapidly growing cities: Identifying common patterns and enabling factors," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    10. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2018. "σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices," MPRA Paper 83569, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Vargas, Andrés & Sarmiento Erazo, Juan Pablo & Diaz, David, 2020. "Has Cost Benefit Analysis Improved Decisions in Colombia? Evidence from the Environmental Licensing Process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    12. Aistė Diržytė & Ona Gražina Rakauskienė & Vaida Servetkienė, 2017. "Evaluation of resilience impact on socio-economic inequality," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 4(4), pages 489-501, June.
    13. Leonardo Becchetti & Emanuele Bobbio & Federico Prizia & Lorenzo Semplici, 2022. "Going Deeper into the S of ESG: A Relational Approach to the Definition of Social Responsibility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-22, August.
    14. Olga M. Gusarova & Svetlana L. Lozhkina & Tatiana V. Reger & Elena V. Tarasova & Gleb A. Agapov, 2021. "Assessment of the ecological potential of the region using the method of regression analysis and the coefficient of elasticity for sustainable development," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(1), pages 111-131.
    15. Stefano Marchetti & Luca Secondi, 2017. "Estimates of Household Consumption Expenditure at Provincial Level in Italy by Using Small Area Estimation Methods: “Real” Comparisons Using Purchasing Power Parities," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 131(1), pages 215-234, March.
    16. Nadia Singh & Areet Kaur, 2022. "The COVID‐19 pandemic: Narratives of informal women workers in Indian Punjab," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 388-407, March.
    17. Franziska Gassmann & Bruno Martorano & Jennifer Waidler, 2022. "How Social Assistance Affects Subjective Wellbeing: Lessons from Kyrgyzstan," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(4), pages 827-847, April.
    18. Nafisa Yeasmin & Timo Koivurova, 2021. "Social Enterprises of Immigrants: A Panacea for the Finnish Labour Market?," South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, , vol. 10(2), pages 180-195, August.
    19. Ana Gil Solá & Bertil Vilhelmson, 2018. "Negotiating Proximity in Sustainable Urban Planning: A Swedish Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, December.
    20. Dietz, Simon & Neumayer, Eric, 2007. "Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and measurement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 617-626, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:trapol:v:172:y:2025:i:c:s0967070x25003087. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.