Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Transportation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The aim of Transport Infrastructure Needs Assessment (TINAs in Central and Eastern Europe) was mainly to assess the needs of the new accession member states of the EU.

  2. For example, decision makers’ views could have a weight of 50 %, and the remaining stakeholders i.e. local/regional authorities, consultants, academics, environmental NGOs, others, 10 % respectively. The distribution depends on the overall approach and decision making context though.

  3. It is by no means argued here that the composite indicator employed within SUMINI has the same technical features as BCR within CBA, as the BCR is largely linked with welfare alterations measured through utility changes.

References

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anthoff, D., Tol, R.: On international equity weights and national decision making on climate change. ESRI Res. Bull. http://hdl.handle.net/2262/57127 (2011). Accessed 02 April 2010

  • 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 

  • Aschauer, D.: Is public expenditure productive? J. Monetary Econ. 23(2), 177–200 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, G., Machado, F., Mourato, S.: Balancing competing principles of environmental equity. Environ. Plan. A 32, 1791–1806 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barfod, M.: The Analytical Hierarch Process Technical Note. CTT-DTU, Copenhagen (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J.: Thinking and deciding (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)

  • 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)

  • 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 

  • Beyazit, E.: Evaluating social justice in transport: lessons to be learned from the capability approach. Transp. Rev. 31(1), 117–134 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. http://heatco.ier.uni-stuttgart.de/hd2final.pdf. (2005). Accessed 20 May 2011

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, P., Arter, K., Buchanan, C., Meeks, R.: Agglomeration benefits of Crossrail. Association of European Transport and contributors 2006 (2006)

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CfIT.: A review of transport appraisal. Advice from the Commission for Integrated Transport (2004)

  • Cohen, J.: Economic benefits of investments in transport infrastructure. OECD, ITF Discussion Paper 2007-13, West Hartford (2007)

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delbosc, A., Currie, A.: Using Lorenz curves to assess public transport equity. J. Transp. Geogr. 19, 1252–1259 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Rus, G.: Interurban passenger transport: economic assessment of major infrastructure projects. OECD, ITF Discussion Paper 2009-18, Madrid (2009)

  • 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)

  • 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)

  • DfT.: Transport, wider economic benefits, and impacts on GDP. Department for Transport Discussion Paper (2005)

  • DfT.: Summary guidance on social and distributional impacts of transport interventions. Transport analysis guidance (TAG). TAG Unit 2.13. Department for Transport. http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/project-manager/pdf/unit2.13.pdf (2011a). Accessed 4 April 2012

  • DfT.: Detailed guidance on social and distributional impacts of transport interventions. Transport analysis guidance (TAG). TAG Unit 3.17. Department for Transport. http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/pdf/unit3.17.pdf (2011b). Accessed 4 April 2012

  • Dimitriou, H., Trueb, O.: Transportation megaprojects, globalization, and place-making in Hong Kong and South China. Transp. Res. Board 1924, 59–68 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Docherty, I., Mackie, P.: Planning for transport in the wake of Stern and Eddington. Reg. Stud. 44(8), 1085–1096 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC.: Decision COM (2002) 542 Final. 2001/0229 (COD). 26 Sept 2002. Brussels (2002)

  • EC: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, Communication from the Commission, Europe 2020, COM(2010), 2020 Final, 3.3.2010 (2010)

  • EC.: EC European Council Review of the EU sustainable Development Strategy-Renewed Strategy 2006, Annex 10917/06 (2006)

  • EC.: The EU sustainable development strategy. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/ (2009a). Accessed 14 April 2011

  • EC.: VBTB and the evaluation function http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/evalsed/sourcebooks/capacity_building/netherlands/eval_function_en.htm (2009b). Accessed 16 May 2011

  • EC.: Fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/cohesion5/index_en.cfm (2011a). Accessed 16 May 2011

  • EC.: Revision of TEN-T guidelines. DG Transport. European Commission. Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/connecting/revision-t_en.htm (2011b). Accessed 6 Dec 2011

  • EC.: Impact assessment white paper: Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area: towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system (2011c)

  • Ecola, L., Light, T.: Making congestion pricing equitable. Transp. Res. Rec. 2187, 53–59 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feitelson, E.: Introducing environmental equity dimensions into the sustainable transport discourse: issues and pitfalls. Transp. Res. Part D 7(2), 99–118 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Flyvbjerg, B.: Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual. Inq. 12(2), 219–245 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FMTBH.: Federal transport infrastructure plan 2003: laying the foundations for the future mobility in Germany. Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing (2003)

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 2006

  • Giorgi, L., Tandon, A.: Introduction: the theory and practice of evaluation. In: Project and Policy Evaluation in Transport. Ashgate, Aldershot (2002)

  • Gowdy, J.: The revolution in welfare economics and its implications for environmental valuation policy. Land Econ. 80(2), 239–257 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, D.: Agglomeration economies and transport investment. OECD, ITF Discussion Paper 2007-11, London (2007)

  • 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 

  • 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)

  • 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 

  • 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)

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haezendonck, E. (ed.): Transport Project Evaluation: Extending the Social-Cost Benefit Approach. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham (2007)

  • Hajkowicz, S.: A comparison of multiple criteria analysis and unaided approaches to environmental decision making. Environ. Sci. Policy 10, 177–184 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hayashi, Y., Morisugi, H.: International comparison of background concept and methodology of transportation project appraisal, Transp. Policy 7(1), 73–88 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayles, C., Graham, M., Fong, P.: Value management for sustainable decision making. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 163(1), 43–50 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • HMT.: The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government—Treasury Guidance. HM Treasury, TSO, London (2011)

  • 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

  • Jiliberto Herrera, R.: The contribution of Strategic Environmental Assessment to transport policy governance. OECD, ITF Discussion Paper 2009-30, Madrid (2009)

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khisty, : Operationalizing concepts of equity for public project investments. Transp. Res. Rec. 1559, 94–99 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, D.: Remediating inequity in transportation finance, transportation research board. Special report 303: equity of evolving transportation finance mechanisms 2009, pp 1–19 (2011)

  • Laird, J., Mackie, P.: Review of economic assessment in rural transport appraisal, Transport Research Series, Scottish Government Social Research, Crown Copyright. http://scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/289775/0088769.pdf. (2009). Accessed 30 Apr 2012

  • 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)

  • Lowry, M.: Online public deliberation for a regional transportation improvement decision. Transportation 37(1), 39–58 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, K., Grosvenor, T., Simpson, R.: Transport, the environment and social exclusion. Joseph Rowntree Foundation-York Publishing Services, York (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mackie, P.: Cost benefit analysis in transport: a UK perspective. OECD, ITF Discussion Paper 2010-16, Leeds (2010)

  • 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 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, G.: Defining and measuring progress towards a sustainable transport system. TRB Sustainable Transportation Indicators (STI) Discussion Paper (2007)

  • 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)

  • Morisugi, H.: Evaluation methodologies of transportation projects in Japan. Transp. Policy 7(1), 35–40 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  • MOVE.: European Transport Fund Roadmap. Initial IA screening and planning of further work, 19 March 2010, Version: 1, Brussels (2010)

  • Nakamura, H.: The economic evaluation of transport infrastructure: needs for international comparisons. Transp. Policy 3–6 (2000)

  • 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. http://heatco.ier.uni-stuttgart.de/hd1final.pdf (2005). Accessed 20 May 2011

  • OECD-JRC: Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. OECD-JRC Publication, Paris (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD.: Improving CBA practice, Discussion Paper 2011-1. International Transport Forum—OECD. www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/DP201101.pdf. (2011). Accessed 20 May 2011

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Partidario, M.: Does SEA change outcomes? OECD—ITF Discussion Paper 2009-31, Lisbon (2009)

  • Pearce, D., Atkinson, G., Mourato, S.: Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments. OECD, Paris (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • Phang, S.Y.: Strategic development of airport and rail infrastructure: the case of Singapore. Transp. Policy 10, 27–33 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. http://www.sunset-project.eu/deliverables.html. (2011). Accessed 30 Apr 2012. Grant agreement no: 270228, ICT for Transport, EC, Brussels

  • Proost, S., van Dender, K.: What sustainable road transport future? Trends and policy options. OECD—ITF Discussion Paper 2010-14, Leuven (2010)

  • 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)

  • 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 

  • Quinet, E.: The practice of cost-benefit analysis in transport: the case of France. OECD—ITF Discussion Paper 2010-17, Paris (2010)

  • Radej, B.: Synthesis in policy impact evaluation. SDE Working Papers, 4th revision, Slovenian Evaluation Society, Ljubljana, 1(3) pp 1–22 (2011)

  • Rawls, J.: Concepts of distributional equity—Some reasons for the maximin criterion. Am Econ. Rev. 6(2), 141–146 (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rogers, P., Jalal, K., Boyd, J.: An introduction to Sustainable Development. Earthscan, London (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothengatter, W.: Evaluation methodologies of transportation projects in Germany. Transp. Policy 7, 17–25 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T.: The Analytical Hierachy Process. Wiley, New York (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T.L.: Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  • SEC.: 358 final, 28 March 2011. European Commission, Brussels (2011)

  • 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 

  • Saltelli, A., Jesinghaus, J., Munda, G.: Well being stories, Beyond GDP Conference, Experts Workshop, 19–20 Nov 2007 (2008)

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweigert, F.: The priority of justice: a framework approach to ethics in program evaluation. Eval. Prog. Plan. 30(4), 394–399 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • Sen, A.: Collective Choice and Social Welfare. Holden Day, San Francisco (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  • Shang, J., Youxu, T., Yizhong, D.: A unified framework for multicriteria evaluation of transportation projects. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 51(3), 300–313 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiftan, Y., Sharaby, N., Solomon, C.: Transport project appraisal in Israel. Transp. Res. Board 2079, 136–145 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/spectrum/ (2004). Accessed 20 May 2011

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sue Wing, I., Anderson, W., Lakshaman, T.: The broader benefits of transportation infrastructure. OECD—ITF Discussion Paper No. 2007-10, Boston (2007)

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomopoulos, N.: Incorporating equity considerations in the appraisal of large transport infrastructure projects. PhD thesis, University of Leeds (2010)

  • Timms, P.: Transport models, philosophy and language. Transportation 35, 395–410 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsamboulas, D., Yiotis, G., Panou, K.: Use of multicriteria methods for assessment of transport projects. J. Transp. Eng. 1125(5), 407–414 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsolakis, D., Preski, K., Hougton, N.: Guide to project evaluation Part 6: distributional (equity) effects. AGPE06/05, Austroads, Sydney (2005)

  • 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 

  • Turner, K.: Limits to CBA in UK and European environmental policy: retrospects and future prospects. Environ. Resour. Econ. 37(1), 253–269 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Wee, B.: Transport and Ethics: Ethics and the Evaluation of Transport Policies and Projects. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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)

  • Vickerman, R.: Cost-benefit analysis and large-scale infrastructure projects: state of the art and challenges. Environ. Plan. B 34, 598–610 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallington, T., Bina, O., Thissen, W.: Theorising strategic environmental assessment: fresh perspectives and future challenges. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 27(7), 569–584 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, A., Sciara, G.C.: Unravelling equity in HOT lane planning: a view from practice. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 26(2), 174–184 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • 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 

  • 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 2011

  • Yin, R.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th edn. Sage, London (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, H.: Equity: In Theory and Practice. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K., Sheate, W.: EIA application in China’s expressway infrastructure: clarifying the decision-making hierarchy. J. Environ. Manage. 92, 1471–1483 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, 34-40 University Road, LS2 9JT, Leeds, UK

    Nikolaos Thomopoulos & Susan Grant-Muller

Authors
  1. Nikolaos Thomopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan Grant-Muller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikolaos Thomopoulos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thomopoulos, N., Grant-Muller, S. Incorporating equity as part of the wider impacts in transport infrastructure assessment: an application of the SUMINI approach. Transportation 40, 315–345 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-012-9418-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-012-9418-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation