IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Incorporating equity as part of the wider impacts in transport infrastructure assessment: an application of the SUMINI approach

Listed author(s):
  • Nikolaos Thomopoulos

    ()

  • Susan Grant-Muller

    ()

Registered author(s):

    The state of the art in appraisal of transport infrastructure (particularly for developed countries) is moving towards inclusivity of a set of wider impacts than has traditionally been the case. In appraisal frameworks generally Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA), features as either an alternative to, or complementary with, Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) particularly when assessing a wider set of distributional and other impacts. In that respect it goes some way towards addressing an identified weakness in conventional CBA. This paper proposes a new method to incorporate the wider impacts into the appraisal framework (SUMINI) based upon a composite indicator and MCA. The method is illustrated for a particular example of the wider set of impacts, i.e. equity, through the ex-post assessment of two large EU transport infrastructure (TEN-T) case studies. The results suggest that SUMINI assesses equity impacts well and the case studies highlight the flexibility of the approach in reflecting different policy or project objectives. The research concludes that this method should not be viewed as being in competition with traditional CBA, but that it could be an easily adopted and complementary approach. The value in the research is in providing a new and significant methodological advance to the historically difficult question of how to evaluate equity and other wider impacts. The research is of strong international significance due to the publication of the TEN-Ts review by the European Commission, as well as the transnational nature of large scale interurban transport schemes, the involvement of national and transnational stakeholder groups in the approval and funding of those schemes, the large numbers of population potentially subject to equity and other wider impacts and the degree of variation in the regional objectives and priorities for transport decision makers. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2013

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11116-012-9418-5
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer in its journal Transportation.

    Volume (Year): 40 (2013)
    Issue (Month): 2 (February)
    Pages: 315-345

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:40:y:2013:i:2:p:315-345
    DOI: 10.1007/s11116-012-9418-5
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.springer.com

    Order Information: Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/regional+science/journal/11116/PS2

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as
    in new window


    1. Stef Proost & Fay Dunkerley & Saskia Loo & Nicole Adler & Johannes Bröcker & Artem Korzhenevych, 2014. "Do the selected Trans European transport investments pass the cost benefit test?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 107-132, January.
    2. R. Turner, 2007. "Limits to CBA in UK and European environmental policy: retrospects and future prospects," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 253-269, May.
    3. Massimo Florio, 2006. "Cost-benefit analysis and the European union cohesion fund: On the social cost of capital and labour," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 211-224.
    4. Maria Berrittella & A. Certa & M. Enea & P. Zito, 2007. "An Analytic Hierarchy Process for The Evaluation of Transport Policies to Reduce Climate Change Impacts," Working Papers 2007.12, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    5. Aschauer, David Alan, 1989. "Is public expenditure productive?," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 177-200, March.
    6. 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.
    7. Phang, Sock-Yong, 2003. "Strategic development of airport and rail infrastructure: the case of Singapore," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 27-33, January.
    8. Sotirios Thanos & Mark Wardman & Abigail Bristow, 2011. "Valuing Aircraft Noise: Stated Choice Experiments Reflecting Inter-Temporal Noise Changes from Airport Relocation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(4), pages 559-583, December.
    9. Jeffrey P. Cohen, 2007. "Economic Benefits of Investments in Transport Infrastructure," OECD/ITF Joint Transport Research Centre Discussion Papers 2007/13, OECD Publishing.
    10. Sturm, Jan Egbert & de Haan, Jakob, 1995. "Is public expenditure really productive?: New evidence for the USA and The Netherlands," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 60-72, January.
    11. Anthoff, David & Tol, Richard S.J., 2010. "On international equity weights and national decision making on climate change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 14-20, July.
    12. Giles Atkinson & Fernando Machado & Susana Mourato, 2000. "Balancing Competing Principles of Environmental Equity," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 32(10), pages 1791-1806, October.
    13. Schweigert, Francis J., 2007. "The priority of justice: A framework approach to ethics in program evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 394-399, November.
    14. Ian Sue Wing & William P. Anderson & T. R. Lakshmanan, 2007. "The Broader Benefits of Transportation Infrastructure," OECD/ITF Joint Transport Research Centre Discussion Papers 2007/10, OECD Publishing.
    15. Daniel J. Graham, 2007. "Agglomeration Economies and Transport Investment," OECD/ITF Joint Transport Research Centre Discussion Papers 2007/11, OECD Publishing.
    16. Michael Lowry, 2010. "Online public deliberation for a regional transportation improvement decision," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 39-58, January.
    17. Jan Anne Annema & Carl Koopmans & Bert Van Wee, 2006. "Evaluating Transport Infrastructure Investments: The Dutch Experience with a Standardized Approach," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 125-150, June.
    18. Tudela, Alejandro & Akiki, Natalia & Cisternas, Rene, 2006. "Comparing the output of cost benefit and multi-criteria analysis: An application to urban transport investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 414-423, June.
    19. Proost, Stef & Dunkerley, Fay & Borger, Bruno De & Gühneman, Astrid & Koskenoja, Pia & Mackie, Peter & Loo, Saskia Van der, 2011. "When are subsidies to trans-European network projects justified?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 161-170, March.
    20. Nakamura, H., 2000. "The economic evaluation of transport infrastructure: needs for international comparisons," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 3-6, January.
    21. Weisbrod, Glen & Lynch, Teresa & Meyer, Michael, 2009. "Extending monetary values to broader performance and impact measures: Transportation applications and lessons for other fields," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 332-341, November.
    22. Camagni, Roberto, 2009. "Territorial Impact Assessment for European regions: A methodological proposal and an application to EU transport policy," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 342-350, November.
    23. Iain Docherty & Peter Mackie, 2010. "Planning for Transport in the Wake of Stern and Eddington," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(8), pages 1085-1096.
    24. Bröcker, Johannes & Korzhenevych, Artem & Schürmann, Carsten, 2010. "Assessing spatial equity and efficiency impacts of transport infrastructure projects," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 795-811, August.
    25. Junjie Hong & Zhaofang Chu & Qiang Wang, 2011. "Transport infrastructure and regional economic growth: evidence from China," Transportation, Springer, vol. 38(5), pages 737-752, September.
    26. Morisugi, H., 2000. "Evaluation methodologies of transportation projects in Japan," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 35-40, January.
    27. Paul Timms, 2008. "Transport models, philosophy and language," Transportation, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 395-410, May.
    28. Hayashi, Y. & Morisugi, H., 2000. "International comparison of background concept and methodology of transportation project appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 73-88, January.
    29. Stef Proost & Kurt van Dender, 2010. "What Sustainable Road Transport Future?: Trends and Policy Options," OECD/ITF Joint Transport Research Centre Discussion Papers 2010/14, OECD Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:40:y:2013:i:2:p:315-345. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)

    or (Rebekah McClure)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.