Abstract
In the transport sector, a rational and shared planning process is commonly based on the comparison of different design alternatives through quantitative evaluations and stakeholders’ engagement. Among the most adopted evaluation methods, there are cost–benefit analysis (CBA) and multi-criteria analysis (MCA). Both these methods have strengths and weaknesses, which do not allow the conclusion that one technique is dominant over the other. Starting from these considerations, the aim of this paper is to propose a sustainable evaluation process for investments in the transport sector, based on the combined use of both CBA and MCA analysis and a stakeholders’ engagement. The proposed evaluation method was also applied to a real case study: the decision-making process for a new highway in a high naturalistic and touristic area in north of Italy. Furthermore, a “weighted criteria process definition” based on the Delphi method was also performed within a public engagement process. Research results show that the application of both the evaluation analyses (CBA and MCA) allows the selection of the most rational althernative from a sustainable, shared and technical point of view. Precisely, the estimations performed underline that the CBA analysis significantly underestimated the non-users’ benefits, while the opposite occurred for the MCA analysis. The incidence of the non-users’ benefits is only the 14% of the total for the CBA, while it reaches more than the 79% for the MCA. This result is very relevant underling how, for a decision-making processes aimed in comparing different design alternatives for which non-users impacts are expected as relevant against the users ones, the unique application of the most consolidated CBA analyses are not always adequate, while the joint use of the two evaluation methods ensures robust and rational choices for a sustainable development.
Highlights
The decision-making process involving the transport system does not always lead to rational choices
Quantitative techniques are commonly used for these evaluations [2,3,4] and the Italian guidelines suggest applying both cost–benefit analyses (CBA) and multi-criteria analyses (MCA) for a rational decision-making process
Starting from this consideration, the aim of this paper is to propose a sustainable evaluation process for investments in the transport sector based on the combined use of both cost–benefit analysis (CBA) and multi-criteria analysis (MCA) analysis and stakeholders’ engagement
Summary
The decision-making process involving the transport system does not always lead to rational choices. Quantitative techniques are commonly used for these evaluations [2,3,4] and the Italian guidelines suggest applying both cost–benefit analyses (CBA) and multi-criteria analyses (MCA) for a rational decision-making process. These evaluation methods are commonly applied in the transport sector (e.g., [5,6]), and have different strengths, weaknesses, and application fields (e.g., [7,8,9,10,11,12]), and for these reasons there is no unique technique that dominates the others (for details see Section 2), but often several techniques are applied jointly in a rational approach aimed at reducing the weakness of the overall analysis
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
