Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

Living Edition
| Editors: Walter Leal Filho, Anabela Marisa Azul, Luciana Brandli, Pinar Gökcin Özuyar, Tony Wall

Residual Value of Infrastructures

  • Heather JonesEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71059-4_17-1

Synonyms

Definition

Residual value (RV) is the value of the infrastructure at the end of the project lifetime, theoretically equal to the value that the asset will generate from then on.

Introduction

The United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals aim to integrate the three main dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social, and environmental dimensions. The costs and benefits of most sustainable development projects must be evaluated. The proper treatment of the end of life (or residual value) of sustainable development investment projects aids in ensuring that the economic dimension is properly accounted for and gives a truer representation of the costs and benefits. Social discounting, or the selection of the discount rate, ensures that the social dimension is included when evaluating investment projects.

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is selected because it includes the three dimensions. CBA is the most widely used evaluation framework...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Australian Commonwealth Government (ACG) (2013) High speed rail study phase 2 report. Department of Infrastructure and Transport, Australian Commonwealth Government, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  2. Dasgupta P, Maskin E (2005) Uncertainty and hyperbolic discounting. Am Econ Rev 95(3):1290–1300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Edgerton D (2009) Depreciation of infrastructure assets technical information paper. South Australia Local Government. BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  4. European Commission (2008) Guide to cost-benefit analysis of investment projects. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  5. European Commission (2014) Guide to cost-benefit analysis of investment projects: economic appraisal tool for cohesion policy 2014 to 2020. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  6. European Commission and European Investment Bank (RAILPAG) (2005) Rail Project Appraisal Guidelines (RAILPAG). European Commission and European Investment Bank, Brussels and LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  7. Florio M (2006a) Cost-benefit analysis and incentives in infrastructure planning and evaluation: a research agenda for the EU cohesion policy. 5th Milan European Economy Workshop, MilanGoogle Scholar
  8. Florio M (2006b) Cost-benefit analysis and the European Union cohesion fund: on the social cost of capital and labour. Reg Stud 40(2):211–224.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400600600579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Florio M, Vignetti S (2003) Cost-benefit analysis of infrastructure projects in an enlarged European Union: an incentive-oriented approach. Departmental Working Papers 13.2003, Department of Economics, Business and Statistics, Universita degli Studi di Milano.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.455680
  10. Gollier C, Koundouri P, Pantelidis T (2008) Declining discount rates. Econ Policy 23:757–795.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0327.2008.00211.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Groom B, Hepburn C, Koundouri P, Pearce D (2005) Declining discount rates: the long and the short of it. Environ Resour Econ 32:445–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hellweg S, Hofstetter T, Hungerbulher K (2003) Should current impacts be weighted differently than impacts harming future generations? Int J LCA 8(1):8–18Google Scholar
  13. Hepburn C (2004) Hyperbolic discounting and resource collapse. Working Paper 159, Department of Economics, Oxford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  14. International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) (2006) D12 – service concession arrangements – significance of residual value. Agenda Paper 5(iii), LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones H (2016) Transportation infrastructure project evaluation: transforming CBA to include a more encompassing life cycle perspective. PhD thesis, Transportation Systems, MIT-Portugal Program, Universidade Tecnica de Lisboa, Instituto Superior TecnicoGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones H, Moura F, Domingos T (2014) Transport infrastructure project evaluation using cost-benefit analysis. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 111:400–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mulligan C (1996) A logical economist’s argument against hyperbolic discounting. Department of Economics, University of Chicago, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  18. OECD (1969) Manual of industrial project analysis, Social Cost-Benefit Analysis, vol 2. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  19. OECD (2006) Cost-benefit analysis and the environment: recent developments. The organisation for. Economic Co-operation and Development, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Read D (2001) Is time-discounting hyperbolic or subadditive? J Risk Uncertain 23(1):5–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. RITES India Ltd., and Silt Consultants Pvd (2010) Feasibility study of Mechi-Mahakali and Pokhara-Kathmandu Electric Railway. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Physical Planning and Works, KathmanduGoogle Scholar
  22. Rubenstein A (2003) “Economics and psychology”? The case of hyperbolic discounting. Int Econ Rev 44(4):1207–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. United Nations (1972) Guidelines for project evaluation. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Vickerman R (2007) Cost-benefit analysis and large-scale infrastructure projects: state of the art and challenges. Environ Plan B: Plan Des 34:598–610.  https://doi.org/10.1068/b32112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weitzman ML (1994) On the environmental discount rate. J Environ Econ Manag 36:201–208.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1994.1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Weitzman ML (1998) Why the far-distant future should be discounted at its lowest possible rate. J Environ Econ Manag 26:200–209.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1998.1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weitzman ML (2001) Gamma discounting. Am Econ Rev 91:260–271.  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.1.260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. World Bank (1975) Economic analysis of projects. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CESUR/CERis, Civil Engineering Research and Innovation for SustainabilityInstituto Superior Técnico, University of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Section editors and affiliations

  • Lizhen Huang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of manufacturing and civil engineeringNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyGjøvikNorway