, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 315–345 | Cite as

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

  • Nikolaos ThomopoulosEmail author
  • Susan Grant-Muller


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.


Transport assessment Appraisal framework Equity Wider impacts CBA MCA AHP SUMINI 



The authors would like to thank all stakeholders for their time and contribution to this research, alongside the participants of the ERSA 2010 Summer school in Sweden for providing useful feedback on the first draft of this paper. The authors are also grateful to three anonymous referees for their constructive comments and feedback on previous drafts. Finally the authors are thankful for the financial support provided by the Royal Economic Society. Any errors or omissions remain of course with the authors.


  1. Annema, J., Koopmans, C., van Wee, B.: Evaluating transport infrastructure investments: the Dutch experience with a standardized approach. Transp. Rev. 27(2), 125–150 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anthoff, D., Tol, R.: On international equity weights and national decision making on climate change. ESRI Res. Bull. (2011). Accessed 02 April 2010
  3. Arora, A., Tiwari, G.: A Handbook for Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA) of Future Urban Transport (FUT) projects, Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Program (TRIPP). Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi (2007)Google Scholar
  4. Aschauer, D.: Is public expenditure productive? J. Monetary Econ. 23(2), 177–200 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atkinson, G., Machado, F., Mourato, S.: Balancing competing principles of environmental equity. Environ. Plan. A 32, 1791–1806 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barfod, M.: The Analytical Hierarch Process Technical Note. CTT-DTU, Copenhagen (2006)Google Scholar
  7. Barfod, M., Salling, K., Leleur, S.: Composite decision support by combining cost-benefit and multi-criteria decision analysis. Decis. Support Syst. 51(1), 167–175 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baron, J.: Thinking and deciding (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  9. Berrittella, M., Certa, A., Enea, M., Zito, P.: An analytic hierarchy process for the evaluation of transport policies to reduce climate change impacts. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, CCMP, 1-23 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. Beuthe, M.: Transport evaluation methods: from cost-benefit analysis to multicriteria analysis and the decision framework. In: Giorgi, L., et al. (eds.) Project and Policy Evaluation in Transport, pp. 209–241. Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Burlington (2002)Google Scholar
  11. Beyazit, E.: Evaluating social justice in transport: lessons to be learned from the capability approach. Transp. Rev. 31(1), 117–134 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bickel, P., Burgess, A., Hunt, A., Laird, J., Lieb, C., Liendberg, G., Odgaard, T.: State-of-the-art in project assessment, FP6-HEATCO Contract No. FP6-2002-SSP-1/502481 Deliverable 2. (2005). Accessed 20 May 2011
  13. Broecker, J., Korzhenevych, A., Schuermann, C.: Assessing spatial equity and efficiency impacts of transport infrastructure projects. Transp. Res. Part B 44(7), 795–811 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buchanan, P., Arter, K., Buchanan, C., Meeks, R.: Agglomeration benefits of Crossrail. Association of European Transport and contributors 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. Camagni, R.: Territorial impact assessment for European regions: a methodological proposal and an application to EU transport policy. Eval. Prog. Plan. 32, 342–350 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. CfIT.: A review of transport appraisal. Advice from the Commission for Integrated Transport (2004)Google Scholar
  17. Cohen, J.: Economic benefits of investments in transport infrastructure. OECD, ITF Discussion Paper 2007-13, West Hartford (2007)Google Scholar
  18. Cookson, R., Drummond, M., Weatherly, H.: Explicit incorporation of equity considerations into economic evaluation of public health interventions. Health Econ. Policy Law 4, 231–245 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Jong, G., Geerlings, H.: Exposing weaknesses in interactive planning: the remarkable return of comprehensive policy analysis in The Netherlands. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 21(4), 281–291 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Delbosc, A., Currie, A.: Using Lorenz curves to assess public transport equity. J. Transp. Geogr. 19, 1252–1259 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. De Rus, G.: Interurban passenger transport: economic assessment of major infrastructure projects. OECD, ITF Discussion Paper 2009-18, Madrid (2009)Google Scholar
  22. Deakin, E.: Sustainable development and sustainable transportation: strategies for economic prosperity, environmental quality and equity. Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley (2001)Google Scholar
  23. DETR.: Multi-criteria analysis: a manual. DETR appraisal guidance. By Dodgson, J., Spackman, M., Pearman, A, Phillips, L. Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. HMSO Crown Copyright, London (2000)Google Scholar
  24. DfT.: Transport, wider economic benefits, and impacts on GDP. Department for Transport Discussion Paper (2005)Google Scholar
  25. DfT.: Summary guidance on social and distributional impacts of transport interventions. Transport analysis guidance (TAG). TAG Unit 2.13. Department for Transport. (2011a). Accessed 4 April 2012
  26. DfT.: Detailed guidance on social and distributional impacts of transport interventions. Transport analysis guidance (TAG). TAG Unit 3.17. Department for Transport. (2011b). Accessed 4 April 2012
  27. Dimitriou, H., Trueb, O.: Transportation megaprojects, globalization, and place-making in Hong Kong and South China. Transp. Res. Board 1924, 59–68 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Docherty, I., Mackie, P.: Planning for transport in the wake of Stern and Eddington. Reg. Stud. 44(8), 1085–1096 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. EC.: Decision COM (2002) 542 Final. 2001/0229 (COD). 26 Sept 2002. Brussels (2002)Google Scholar
  30. EC: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, Communication from the Commission, Europe 2020, COM(2010), 2020 Final, 3.3.2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  31. EC.: EC European Council Review of the EU sustainable Development Strategy-Renewed Strategy 2006, Annex 10917/06 (2006)Google Scholar
  32. EC.: The EU sustainable development strategy. (2009a). Accessed 14 April 2011
  33. EC.: Fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. (2011a). Accessed 16 May 2011
  34. EC.: Revision of TEN-T guidelines. DG Transport. European Commission. Brussels. (2011b). Accessed 6 Dec 2011
  35. EC.: Impact assessment white paper: Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area: towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system (2011c)Google Scholar
  36. Ecola, L., Light, T.: Making congestion pricing equitable. Transp. Res. Rec. 2187, 53–59 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Feitelson, E.: Introducing environmental equity dimensions into the sustainable transport discourse: issues and pitfalls. Transp. Res. Part D 7(2), 99–118 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Florio, M.: Cost-benefit analysis and the European Union cohesion fund: on the social cost of capital and labour. Reg. Stud. 40(2), 211–224 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Flyvbjerg, B., Richardson, T.: Planning and foucault: in search of the dark side of planning theory. In: Allmendinger, P., Tewdwr, J. (eds.) Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory, pp. 44–62. Routledge, London (2002)Google Scholar
  40. Flyvbjerg, B.: Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual. Inq. 12(2), 219–245 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. FMTBH.: Federal transport infrastructure plan 2003: laying the foundations for the future mobility in Germany. Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing (2003)Google Scholar
  42. Gamper, C., Thoeni, M., Weck-Hannemann, H.: A conceptual approach to the use of cost benefit and multi criteria analysis in natural hazard management. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 6, 293–302 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Georgiadis, L., Bousbouras, D., Giannatos, G.: Via Egnatia case in Greece: an overview of the intervention. International Scientific-Technical Conference on the Influence of Transport Infrastructure on Nature, Poznan, 13–15 Sept 2006Google Scholar
  44. Giorgi, L., Tandon, A.: Introduction: the theory and practice of evaluation. In: Project and Policy Evaluation in Transport. Ashgate, Aldershot (2002)Google Scholar
  45. Gowdy, J.: The revolution in welfare economics and its implications for environmental valuation policy. Land Econ. 80(2), 239–257 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Graham, D.: Agglomeration economies and transport investment. OECD, ITF Discussion Paper 2007-11, London (2007)Google Scholar
  47. Grant-Muller, S., Mackie, P., Nellthorp, J., Pearman, A.: Economic appraisal of European transport projects: the state-of-the-art revisited. Transp. Rev. 21(2), 237–261 (2001)Google Scholar
  48. Grant-Muller, S., Arsenio, E.: Appraisal methodology for strategic airport planning and development—the case for the new Lisbon Airport. Proceedings of the ATRS Conference 2008, Athens (2008)Google Scholar
  49. Grimsey, D., Lewis, M.: Public Private Partnerships: The Worldwide Revolution in Infrastructure Provision and Project Finance, pp. 24–25. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham (2004)Google Scholar
  50. Guehnemann, A.: Challenges for combining indicators. Final Conference of COST 356 EST: Towards the Definition of a Measurable Environmentally Sustainable Transport, 15 March 2010, Paris (2010)Google Scholar
  51. Gutierrez, J., Condeco-Melhorado, A., Lopez, E., Monzon, A.: Evaluating the European added value of TEN-T projects: a methodological proposal based on spatial spillovers, accessibility and GIS. J. Transp. Geogr. 19, 840–850 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Haezendonck, E. (ed.): Transport Project Evaluation: Extending the Social-Cost Benefit Approach. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham (2007)Google Scholar
  53. Hajkowicz, S.: A comparison of multiple criteria analysis and unaided approaches to environmental decision making. Environ. Sci. Policy 10, 177–184 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Harris, J.: More and better justice. In: Bell, J., Mendus, S. (eds.) Philosophy and Medical Welfare, pp. 75–96. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  55. Hayashi, Y., Morisugi, H.: International comparison of background concept and methodology of transportation project appraisal, Transp. Policy 7(1), 73–88 (2000)Google Scholar
  56. Hayles, C., Graham, M., Fong, P.: Value management for sustainable decision making. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 163(1), 43–50 (2010)Google Scholar
  57. HMT.: The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government—Treasury Guidance. HM Treasury, TSO, London (2011)Google Scholar
  58. Hong, J., Chu, Z., Wang, Q.: Transport infrastructure and regional economic growth: evidence from China. Transportation 1–16 (2011) doi: 10.1007/s11116-011-9349-6
  59. Jiliberto Herrera, R.: The contribution of Strategic Environmental Assessment to transport policy governance. OECD, ITF Discussion Paper 2009-30, Madrid (2009)Google Scholar
  60. Johanson-Stenman, O.: The importance of ethics in environmental economics with a focus on existence values. Environ. Resour. Econ. 11(3/4), 429–442 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Khisty, : Operationalizing concepts of equity for public project investments. Transp. Res. Rec. 1559, 94–99 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. King, D.: Remediating inequity in transportation finance, transportation research board. Special report 303: equity of evolving transportation finance mechanisms 2009, pp 1–19 (2011)Google Scholar
  63. Laird, J., Mackie, P.: Review of economic assessment in rural transport appraisal, Transport Research Series, Scottish Government Social Research, Crown Copyright. (2009). Accessed 30 Apr 2012
  64. Lopez, H.: The social discount rate: estimates for Nine Latin American countries. Policy Research Working Paper 4639, Latin America and the Caribbean Region, Office of the Chief Economist, World Bank (2008)Google Scholar
  65. Lowry, M.: Online public deliberation for a regional transportation improvement decision. Transportation 37(1), 39–58 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lucas, K., Grosvenor, T., Simpson, R.: Transport, the environment and social exclusion. Joseph Rowntree Foundation-York Publishing Services, York (2001)Google Scholar
  67. Lucas, K., Markovich, J.: International perspectives. In: Curry, G. (ed.) New Perspectives and Methods in Transport and Social Exclusion Research. Bingley, Emerald (2011)Google Scholar
  68. Mackie, P.: Cost benefit analysis in transport: a UK perspective. OECD, ITF Discussion Paper 2010-16, Leeds (2010)Google Scholar
  69. Mackie, P., Nellthorp, J.: Cost-benefit analysis in transport. In: Hensher, D., Button, K. (eds.) Handbook of Transport Systems and Traffic Control, Chap 10, pp. 143–174. Pergamon, Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
  70. Mancebo Quintana, S., Martin Ramos, B., Casermeiro Martinez, M., Otero Pastor, I.: A model for assessing habitat fragmentation caused by new infrastructures in extensive territories—evaluation of the impact of the Spanish strategic infrastructure and transport plan. J. Environ. Manage. 91, 1087–1096 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Marsden, G.: Defining and measuring progress towards a sustainable transport system. TRB Sustainable Transportation Indicators (STI) Discussion Paper (2007)Google Scholar
  72. Martens, K.: Justice in transport—Applying Walzer’s ‘Spheres of justice to the transport sector’, Proceedings of the 88th annual meeting of the transportation research board (2009)Google Scholar
  73. Morisugi, H.: Evaluation methodologies of transportation projects in Japan. Transp. Policy 7(1), 35–40 (2000)Google Scholar
  74. MOVE.: European Transport Fund Roadmap. Initial IA screening and planning of further work, 19 March 2010, Version: 1, Brussels (2010)Google Scholar
  75. Nakamura, H.: The economic evaluation of transport infrastructure: needs for international comparisons. Transp. Policy 3–6 (2000)Google Scholar
  76. Odgaard, T., Kelly, C., Laird, J.: Current practice in project appraisal in Europe: analysis of country reports. FP6-HEATCO Contract No. FP6-2002-SSP-1/502481 deliverable 1. (2005). Accessed 20 May 2011
  77. OECD-JRC: Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. OECD-JRC Publication, Paris (2008)Google Scholar
  78. OECD.: Improving CBA practice, Discussion Paper 2011-1. International Transport Forum—OECD. (2011). Accessed 20 May 2011
  79. Olson, B.: The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century: the failure of metropolitan planning organizations to reform federal transportation policy in metropolitan areas. J. Transp. Law 28, 147 (2000)Google Scholar
  80. Ong, K., Kelaher, M., Anderson, I., Carter, R.: A cost-based equity weight for use in the economic evaluation of primary health care interventions: case study of Australian Indigenous population. Int. J. Equity Health 8(34), 1–14 (2009)Google Scholar
  81. Oxman, A., Lavis, J., Lewin, S., Fretheim, A.: SUPPORT tools for evidence-informed health policymaking (STP) 10: taking equity into consideration when assessing the findings of a systematic review. Health Res. Policy Syst. 7(Suppl 1), S10 (2009). (1–9)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Partidario, M.: Does SEA change outcomes? OECD—ITF Discussion Paper 2009-31, Lisbon (2009)Google Scholar
  83. Pearce, D., Atkinson, G., Mourato, S.: Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments. OECD, Paris (2006)Google Scholar
  84. Phang, S.Y.: Strategic development of airport and rail infrastructure: the case of Singapore. Transp. Policy 10, 27–33 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Poslad, S., Zhenchen, W., Koolwaaij, J., Hodgson, F., Grant-Muller, S., Thomopoulos, N., Carlson, R., Schaefer, C., Hjalmarsson, A., Luther, M.: Preliminary User, System Requirements Review and Specification SUNSET Deliverable D 1.1 SUNSET Sustainable Social Network Services for Transport. (2011). Accessed 30 Apr 2012. Grant agreement no: 270228, ICT for Transport, EC, Brussels
  86. Proost, S., van Dender, K.: What sustainable road transport future? Trends and policy options. OECD—ITF Discussion Paper 2010-14, Leuven (2010)Google Scholar
  87. Proost, S., Dunkerley, F., Van der Loo, S., Adler, N., Broekcer, J., Korzhenevyc, A.: Do the selected Trans European transport investments pass the cost benefit test? CES Discussion Paper, 10.02 (2010)Google Scholar
  88. Proost, S., Dunkerley, F., De Borger, B., Guehneman, A., Koskenoja, P., Mackie, P., Van der Loo, S.: When are subsidies to trans-European network projects justified? Transp. Res. Part A 45, 161–170 (2011)Google Scholar
  89. Quinet, E.: The practice of cost-benefit analysis in transport: the case of France. OECD—ITF Discussion Paper 2010-17, Paris (2010)Google Scholar
  90. Radej, B.: Synthesis in policy impact evaluation. SDE Working Papers, 4th revision, Slovenian Evaluation Society, Ljubljana, 1(3) pp 1–22 (2011)Google Scholar
  91. Rawls, J.: Concepts of distributional equity—Some reasons for the maximin criterion. Am Econ. Rev. 6(2), 141–146 (1974)Google Scholar
  92. Rietveld, P.: Equity, efficiency and compensation in transport policy. In: Henscher, D., Button, K. (eds.) Handbook of Transport Modelling, vol. 4, pp. 585–602. Pergamon, London (2003)Google Scholar
  93. Rogers, P., Jalal, K., Boyd, J.: An introduction to Sustainable Development. Earthscan, London (2008)Google Scholar
  94. Rothengatter, W.: Evaluation methodologies of transportation projects in Germany. Transp. Policy 7, 17–25 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Saaty, T.: The Analytical Hierachy Process. Wiley, New York (1980)Google Scholar
  96. Saaty, T.L.: Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh (1999)Google Scholar
  97. SEC.: 358 final, 28 March 2011. European Commission, Brussels (2011)Google Scholar
  98. Saitua, R.: Some considerations on social cost-benefit analysis as a tool for decision making. In: Haezendonck, E. (ed.) Transport Project Evaluation: Extending the Social Cost-Benefit Approach, pp. 23–34. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2007)Google Scholar
  99. Saltelli, A., Jesinghaus, J., Munda, G.: Well being stories, Beyond GDP Conference, Experts Workshop, 19–20 Nov 2007 (2008)Google Scholar
  100. Sanchez, L., Silva-Sanchez, S.: Tiering strategic environmental assessment and project environmental impact assessment in highway planning in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 28, 515–522 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Schweigert, F.: The priority of justice: a framework approach to ethics in program evaluation. Eval. Prog. Plan. 30(4), 394–399 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. SEC: Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, Annex to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the European Council, Annex I, Volume 23, COM (2011) 650,SEC (2011) 1212/1213 (2011)Google Scholar
  103. Sen, A.: Collective Choice and Social Welfare. Holden Day, San Francisco (1970)Google Scholar
  104. Shang, J., Youxu, T., Yizhong, D.: A unified framework for multicriteria evaluation of transportation projects. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 51(3), 300–313 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Shiftan, Y., Sharaby, N., Solomon, C.: Transport project appraisal in Israel. Transp. Res. Board 2079, 136–145 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. SPECTRUM-D6.: Measurement and Treatment of High Level Impacts, version 14/5/2004, Deliverable 6. EC FP5. Project co-ordinator: Dr S. Grant-Muller, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds. Study of Policies regarding Economic instruments Complementing Transport Regulation and the Undertaking of physical Measures (2004). Accessed 20 May 2011
  107. Sturm, J., De Haan, J.: Is public expenditure really productive? New evidence for the USA and the Netherlands. Econ. Model. 12(1), 60–72 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Sue Wing, I., Anderson, W., Lakshaman, T.: The broader benefits of transportation infrastructure. OECD—ITF Discussion Paper No. 2007-10, Boston (2007)Google Scholar
  109. Taebi, B., Kadak, A.: Intergenerational considerations affecting the future of nuclear power: equity as a framework for assessing fuel cycles. Risk Anal. 30(9), 1341–1362 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Thanos, S., Wardman, M., Bristow, A.: Valuing aircraft noise: stated choice experiments reflecting inter-temporal noise changes from airport relocation. Environ. Resour. Econ. (2011). doi: 10.1007/s10640-011-9482-x Google Scholar
  111. Thomopoulos, N., Grant-Muller, S., Tight, M.: Incorporating equity considerations in transport infrastructure evaluation: current practice and a proposed methodology. Eval. Prog. Plan. 32, 351–359 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Thomopoulos, N.: Incorporating equity considerations in the appraisal of large transport infrastructure projects. PhD thesis, University of Leeds (2010)Google Scholar
  113. Timms, P.: Transport models, philosophy and language. Transportation 35, 395–410 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Todd, H., Zografos, C.: Justice for the environment: developing a set of indicators of environmental justice for Scotland. Environ. Values 14(4), 483–501 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Tsamboulas, D., Yiotis, G., Panou, K.: Use of multicriteria methods for assessment of transport projects. J. Transp. Eng. 1125(5), 407–414 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Tsolakis, D., Preski, K., Hougton, N.: Guide to project evaluation Part 6: distributional (equity) effects. AGPE06/05, Austroads, Sydney (2005)Google Scholar
  117. Tudela, A., Akiki, N., Cisternas, R.: Comparing the output of cost benefit and multi-criteria analysis: an application to urban transport investments. Transp. Res. Part A 40(5), 414–423 (2006)Google Scholar
  118. Turner, K.: Limits to CBA in UK and European environmental policy: retrospects and future prospects. Environ. Resour. Econ. 37(1), 253–269 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Van Wee, B.: Transport and Ethics: Ethics and the Evaluation of Transport Policies and Projects. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2011)Google Scholar
  120. Van Wee, B.: How suitable is CBA for the ex-ante evaluation of transport projects and policies? A discussion from the perspective of ethics. Transp. Policy 19(1), 1–7 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Van Wee, B., Geurs, K.: Discussing equity and social exclusion in accessibility evaluations. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 11(4), 350–367 (2011)Google Scholar
  122. Veron, A.: Brazil: improving the appraisal framework for road transport infrastructure investments: elements for consideration. World Bank, Transport Sector Board, Transport Papers. TP-29. Washington DC, (2010)Google Scholar
  123. Vickerman, R.: Cost-benefit analysis and large-scale infrastructure projects: state of the art and challenges. Environ. Plan. B 34, 598–610 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Wallington, T., Bina, O., Thissen, W.: Theorising strategic environmental assessment: fresh perspectives and future challenges. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 27(7), 569–584 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Weinstein, A., Sciara, G.C.: Unravelling equity in HOT lane planning: a view from practice. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 26(2), 174–184 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Wiegmans, B.: The economics of a new rail freight line: the case of the Betuweline in the Netherlands. In: Proceedings of the European Transport Conference, Association of European Transport and contributors, Oct 2008. Leeuwenhorst, The Netherlands (2008)Google Scholar
  127. Willis, K.: Cost-benefit analysis. In: Button, K., Hensher, D. (eds.) Handbook of Transport Strategy, Policy and Institutions, pp. 491–506. Elsevier, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  128. Weisbrod, G., Lynch, T., Meyer, M.: Extending monetary values to broader performance and impact measures: transportation applications and lessons for other fields. Eval. Progr. Plan. 32(4), 332–341 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Worsley, T.: The evolution of London’s Crossrailscheme and the development of the Department for Transports Economic Appraisal Methods, Major transport infrastructure projects and regional economic developments—assessment and implementation, ITF/OECD Joint Transport Research Centre Roundtable 152, 1–2 Dec 2011Google Scholar
  130. Yin, R.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th edn. Sage, London (2009)Google Scholar
  131. Young, H.: Equity: In Theory and Practice. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994)Google Scholar
  132. Zhou, K., Sheate, W.: EIA application in China’s expressway infrastructure: clarifying the decision-making hierarchy. J. Environ. Manage. 92, 1471–1483 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Transport StudiesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations