IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/lsprsc/v10y2017i1d10.1007_s12076-016-0175-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relating cost-benefit analysis results with transport project decisions in the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Jan Anne Annema

    (Delft University of Technology)

  • Koen Frenken

    (Utrecht University)

  • Carl Koopmans

    (VU University
    SEO Economic Research)

  • Maarten Kroesen

    (Delft University of Technology)

Abstract

This paper relates the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) results of transportation policy proposals in the Netherlands with the decision to implement or abandon the proposal. The aim of this study is to explore the relation between the CBA results and decision-making. Multinomial logit regression models and Latent Class Analysis are used in this paper as the statistical tools to identify associations between CBA results and decisions and to reveal unobservable classes underlying the CBA results and the decisions for projects. Analysis was carried out on 106 Netherlands CBA reports (2000–2012) containing 454 observations. Each observation is a CBA result of a transport project variant. In line with most of the international literature, this study cannot find a significant association between Net Present Values (NPVs) and the variants chosen in political decisions (after controlling for other relevant variables). However, a positive NPV does keep variants ‘pending’, preventing a negative decision.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:lsprsc:v:10:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s12076-016-0175-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s12076-016-0175-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12076-016-0175-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12076-016-0175-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Homan, Anthony C., 2014. "Role of BCA in TIGER grant reviews: common errors and influence on the selection process," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 111-135, January.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Nakamura, H., 2000. "The economic evaluation of transport infrastructure: needs for international comparisons," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 3-6, January.
    5. Chiara Del Bo & Massimo Florio, 2010. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and the Rates of Return of Infrastructure Projects: Evidence from International Organizations," Transition Studies Review, Springer;Central Eastern European University Network (CEEUN), vol. 17(3), pages 587-610, September.
    6. William Rogers, 1994. "Regression standard errors in clustered samples," Stata Technical Bulletin, StataCorp LP, vol. 3(13).
    7. Fridstrom, Lasse & Elvik, Rune, 1997. "The Barely Revealed Preference behind Road Investment Priorities," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 92(1-2), pages 145-168, July.
    8. Daniel McFadden, 1975. "The Revealed Preferences of a Government Bureaucracy: Theory," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 6(2), pages 401-416, Autumn.
    9. 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.
    10. Nellthorp, J. & Mackie, P. J., 2000. "The UK Roads Review--a hedonic model of decision making," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 127-138, April.
    11. World Bank, 2010. "Cost-Benefit Analysis in World Bank Projects," World Bank Publications - Reports 10481, The World Bank Group.
    12. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & Wee, Bert van, 2013. "Attitudes towards the role of Cost–Benefit Analysis in the decision-making process for spatial-infrastructure projects: A Dutch case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 1-14.
    13. Lee, D. B., 2000. "Methods for evaluation of transportation projects in the USA," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 41-50, January.
    14. Landry, Rejean & Amara, Nabil & Lamari, Moktar, 2001. "Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 333-349, February.
    15. Daniel McFadden, 1976. "The Revealed Preferences of a Government Bureaucracy: Empirical Evidence," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 7(1), pages 55-72, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bondemark, Anders & Sundbergh, Pia & Tornberg, Patrik & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2020. "Do impact assessments influence transport plans? The case of Sweden," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 52-64.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. Serban Raicu & Mihaela Popa & Dorinela Costescu, 2022. "Uncertainties Influencing Transportation System Performances," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-15, June.
    5. Johanna Jussila Hammes, 2021. "The Impact of Career Concerns and Cognitive Dissonance on Bureaucrats’ Use of Benefit-Cost Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(2), pages 409-424, October.
    6. Bondemark, Anders & Andersson, Henrik & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2022. "Public preferences for distribution in the context of transport investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 160-184.

    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. Jan Anne Annema, 2013. "The use of CBA in decision-making on mega-projects: empirical evidence," Chapters, in: Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 13, pages 291-312, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Bondemark, Anders & Sundbergh, Pia & Tornberg, Patrik & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2020. "Do impact assessments influence transport plans? The case of Sweden," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 52-64.
    3. Salvador Bertomeu & Antonio Estache, 2016. "Unbundling Political and Economic Rationality: a Non-Parametric Approach Tested on Spain," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2016-17, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    4. Thomopoulos, Nikolaos & Grant-Muller, Susan, 2013. "Incorporating equity as part of the wider impacts in transport infrastructure assessment: an application of the SUMINI approach," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60073, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Nikolaos Thomopoulos & Susan Grant-Muller, 2013. "Incorporating equity as part of the wider impacts in transport infrastructure assessment: an application of the SUMINI approach," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 315-345, February.
    6. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & Wee, Bert van, 2013. "Attitudes towards the role of Cost–Benefit Analysis in the decision-making process for spatial-infrastructure projects: A Dutch case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 1-14.
    7. Jonas Eliasson & Mattias Lundberg, 2011. "Do Cost--Benefit Analyses Influence Transport Investment Decisions? Experiences from the Swedish Transport Investment Plan 2010--21," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(1), pages 29-48, April.
    8. Laird, James J. & Venables, Anthony J., 2017. "Transport investment and economic performance: A framework for project appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 1-11.
    9. James Odeck, 2009. "What Determines Decision‐Makers’ Preferences for Road Investments? Evidence from the Norwegian Road Sector," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(4), pages 473-494, June.
    10. Bondemark, Anders & Andersson, Henrik & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2022. "Public preferences for distribution in the context of transport investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 160-184.
    11. Polydoropoulou, Amalia & Roumboutsos, Athena, 2009. "Evaluating the impact of decision making during construction on transport project outcome," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 369-380, November.
    12. Macharis, Cathy & Bernardini, Annalia, 2015. "Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 177-186.
    13. Mouter, Niek, 2017. "Dutch politicians’ attitudes towards Cost-Benefit Analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-10.
    14. 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.
    15. Ait Ali, Abderrahman & Eliasson, Jonas & Warg, Jennifer, 2022. "Are commuter train timetables consistent with passengers’ valuations of waiting times and in-vehicle crowding?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 188-198.
    16. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2013. "Ranking the substantive problems in the Dutch Cost–Benefit Analysis practice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 241-255.
    17. Dominique Prunetti & Alexandre Muzy & Eric Innocenti & Xavier Pieri, 2014. "Utility-based Multi-agent System with Spatial Interactions: The Case of Virtual Estate Development," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 43(3), pages 271-299, March.
    18. Bakker, P. & Koopmans, C. & Nijkamp, P., 2009. "Appraisal of integrated transport policies," Serie Research Memoranda 0052, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    19. 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.
    20. Bilotkach, Volodymyr, 2018. "Political economy of infrastructure investment: Evidence from the economic stimulus airport grants," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 27-35.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cost-benefit analysis; Transportation; Decision-making;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities

    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:spr:lsprsc:v:10:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s12076-016-0175-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/ .

    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.