Comparative analysis of evaluation techniques for transport policies

被引:117
作者
Browne, David [1 ]
Ryan, Lisa [2 ]
机构
[1] Dublin TCD, Trinity Coll, Dept Civil Struct & Environm Engn, Dublin 2, Ireland
[2] IEA, Paris, France
关键词
Transport policy; Cost-benefit analysis; Cost-effectiveness analysis; Multi-criteria decision analysis; SOCIAL MULTICRITERIA EVALUATION; COST-BENEFIT; APPRAISAL; PROJECTS;
D O I
10.1016/j.eiar.2010.11.001
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The objective of this paper is to examine and compare the use of a number of policy evaluation tools, which can be used to measure the impact of transport policies and programmes as part of a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) or sustainability appraisal. The evaluation tools that were examined include cost-benefit analysis (CBA), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). It was concluded that both CEA and CBA are useful for estimating the costs and/or benefits associated with transport policies but are constrained by the difficulty in quantifying non-market impacts and monetising total costs and benefits. Furthermore. CEA is limited to identifying the most 'cost-effective policy' for achieving a single, narrowly defined objective, usually greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and is, therefore, not suitable for evaluating policy options with ancillary costs or a variety of potential benefits. Thus, CBA or CEA evaluation should be complemented by a complete environmental and socio-economic impact assessment approach such as MCDA This method allows for participatory analysis and qualitative assessment but is subject to caveats such as subjectivity and value-laden judgments. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:226 / 233
页数:8
相关论文
共 58 条
[1]  
Anable J., 2007, Transport and Climate Change: Supporting document to the CfIT report
[2]  
Anable J, 2008, COST EFFECTIVENESS C
[3]  
Annandale D, 2001, MAKING GOOD DECISION
[4]  
[Anonymous], TRANSP POLICY
[5]  
Back William., 2000, J TRANSP GEOGR, P141
[6]   The sustainable mobility paradigm [J].
Banister, David .
TRANSPORT POLICY, 2008, 15 (02) :73-80
[7]  
Bristow A., 2000, Transport Pol., V7, P51, DOI [DOI 10.1016/S0967-070X(00)00010-X, 10.1016/S0967-070X(00)00010-X]
[8]   The SO2 emissions trading program: Cost savings without allowance trades [J].
Burtraw, D .
CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIC POLICY, 1996, 14 (02) :79-94
[9]  
Buselich K., 2002, An outline of current thinking on sustainability assessment: A background paper prepared for the Western Australian State Sustainability Strategy
[10]  
CARBONE F, 2000, 3 BIENN C EUR SOC EC