Presenting the case for the application of multi-criteria analysis to mega transport infrastructure project appraisal

Abstract

The paper commences with an overview of mega transport infrastructure decision-making as it relates to the megaproject development cycle and challenges of sustainable development which are increasingly redefining the criterion for the evaluation of project success. The body of the paper presents a brief critique of various appraisal applications to mega transport infrastructure projects, including: Social Cost Benefit Analysis; Cost Effectiveness Analysis; Goal Achievement Matrix Methods and the Planning Balance Sheet, highlighting the merits and demerits of the outlined approaches. Here particular reference is made to the power of context on decision-making and other lessons from OMEGA Centre research. These include, most importantly, the treatment of risk, uncertainty and complexity of developments outside of the project and the challenges of meeting multiple stakeholder aspirations/needs thereby building up the case for the introduction and use of multi-criteria analysis and policy-led multi-criteria analysis to the appraisal of MTPs.

A review of cost–benefit analysis and multicriteria decision analysis from the perspective of sustainable transport in project evaluation

“…The assumptions and theory underlying CBA (social welfare theory, WTP, hedonic prices, etc.) are well-known, have been analysed and debated through the years and are now formalised under various norms, guidelines and structured frameworks (Damart and Roy 2009;Beria et al 2012;Dimitriou et al 2016). This formalisation has led many to perceive CBA as a "neutral", rigorous, transparent and formal method since it allows its users to compare clearly and precisely the costs and the benefits translated into monetary terms (Browne and Ryan 2011;Beria et al 2012;Babashamsi et al 2016;Hickman and Dean 2017).…”

“…Since CBA is market-driven, its results reflect the values of "all people" as the monetary values are defined according to the individuals' preferences through willingness to pay or observed behaviour (Bristow and Nellthorp 2000;Weisbrod and Street 2011;Dimitriou et al 2016). It can even be considered an "economic democracy" where individuals express their preferences with their money ("vote") and, if they lose, the monetary gain compensates for the loss.…”

“…In addition, the monetisation of every impact (quantitative nonmonetary and qualitative) raises several ethical considerations. It must be assumed that everything can be valued with money, including environmental, security and health aspects, which may be perceived as an immoral practice by some (Browne and Ryan 2011;van Wee 2012;Hüging et al 2014;Dimitriou et al 2016;Hickman and Dean 2017). For example, in a survey addressed to different Dutch professionals involved in the transport field, Mouter et al (2013) showed that some aspects like travel time saving and biodiversity were deemed incomparable by urban planners, but totally comparable by economists.…”

“…Equity over time is another concern. The use of discount rates reduces long term impacts to a value of almost zero which results in disadvantages for future generations and a disequilibrium between short and long-term social and environmental impacts (Dimitriou et al 2016;Hickman and Dean 2017;Cornet et al 2018). An environmental impact could take several decades before it manifests (loss of biodiversity, water quality degradation, climate change) and go way beyond the usual reference period considered in CBA (i.e.…”

Evaluation of Large-Scale Projects’ Effects as the Specific Issue of Investment Analysis

“…Особенности планирования и реализации инфраструктурных мегапроектов связываются со спецификой жизненного цикла проекта, что предполагает проведение оценки проекта, основывающейся на многокритериальности принятия решений [5].…”