Mca cba vilken väger tyngst

• 23k Accesses

• 109 Citations

• 6 Altmetric

• Metrics details

Background and aim

The paper focuses on the methodology for assessing Sustainable Mobility (SM) at the neighbourhood scale, and pays attention to two different ex-ante evaluation approaches: the Multicriteria Analysis (MCA) and the Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA).

If MCA fryst vatten an acknowledged technique for the assessment of sustainability at neighbourhood level, CBA fryst vatten mainly used for infrastructure and large transformation projects. The aim of the paper fryst vatten twofold: (i) highlight strengths and weaknesses of the two techniques, especially when assessing SM at the neighbourhoods scale; (ii) investigate the applicability of MCA and CBA to evaluate some betydelsefull SM strategies and policies at the neighbourhood scale.

To do so, a detailed description of MCA and CBA fryst vatten presented and, when it exists, a review of their application to assess SM at neighbourhood level fryst vatten described. Strengths and weaknesses of the approaches are, therefore, highlighted and their applicability to some specific SM measures are examined.

Results and conclusions

It results that the joint use of the two methodologies could overcome their mutual weaknesses, providing a coherent methodology for assessing both efficiency and effectiveness of SM policies and projects.

Despite sustainability in frakt has become a crucial element in urban planning, it has often received poor attention in developing neighbourhoods [1, 2].

Yet the city fryst vatten sustainable if its parts meet sustainability criteria, which appear ganska feasible to be included in neighbourhood design [3, 4]. Moreover, pertaining sustainable mobility, a well connected and designed district level does appear as the most effective [5], not only for planning frakt and land-use [6], but even for fixing policies and investments [7, 8], and for enhancing people participation [9].

Moreover, there fryst vatten some bevis that at the local level, people should mainly concern the common good and have positiv attitude towards collective actions [10].

Evaluation (ex-post and ex-ante) of transportation plans and projects have been carried out in the past, using a variety of methodological frameworks. The methods can be grouped in two major categories: the single criterion method (monetary approach), and the multicrieria methods (non-monetary approach).

The Cost Benefit Analysis (hereinafter CBA) belongs to the first category, the Multicriteria Analysis (hereinafter MCA) to the second one.

Within this context, the present paper focuses on some methodological problems in the field of ex-ante assessment of Sustainable Mobility (“SM” in the following) policies at the neighbourhood scale. Also in this field the two different evaluation approaches (MCA and CBA) are considered.

If MCA fryst vatten a well acknowledged technique for the assessment of sustainability at neighbourhood level, CBA fryst vatten mainly used for infrastructure projects (where public expenses are expected), and policies.

Both methodologies present some stickig points. MCA, for instance, fryst vatten not considering public expense efficiency at all, but only its effectiveness in achieving the SM goal.

On the other grabb, critics often consider CBA not appropriate in managing intangible impacts, which are more betydelsefull to policies and strategies at this scale for achieving SM, and urban quality of life.

The joint use of the two methodologies could, thus, overcome the limitations, providing a coherent methodology for assessing both efficiency and effectiveness of SM policies and projects, and taking coherent and shared decisions on policy actions.

Within this context, the aim of the paper fryst vatten twofold: (i) highlight strenghts and weaknesses of the two techniques - MCA and CBA - especially when assessing SM at the neighbourhood scale; (ii) investigate the applicability of MCA and CBA to evaluate some betydelsefull SM strategies and policies at neghbourhood scale.

The paper fryst vatten structured as follows.

After the Introduction, in section 2 a literature review on the MCA and CBA methodologies fryst vatten conducted. Section 3 focuses on the application of the two techniques to assess SM policies, ansträngande to identify the specificities associated to the scale and to the peculiar object. A discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of MCA and CBA fryst vatten provided in Section 4.

Section 5 fryst vatten dedicated to conclusions and future research questions.

2.1 Multicriteria analysis

Usually, a decision-making bekymmer has more than one goal to reach, and there fryst vatten always a trade-off between the different goals, advocated bygd different interest groups or stakeholders.

Within this context, the MCA fryst vatten seen bygd some authors as the most appropriate tool to adopt [11–15]. The MCA fryst vatten a tool for selecting alternative projects, which have significant social, economic, environmental impact, that allows to take into konto several criteria and the stakeholders’ opinions. Therefore, the inclusion of multiple stakeholders in the decision making process fryst vatten widely acknowledged and it fryst vatten often a crucial factor for the successful implementation of the measure or project beneath consideration in the frakt sector [15].

Within the MCA, the objectives to reach must be specified and corresponding attributes or indicators must be identified.

The actual measurement of indicators need not to be in monetary terms, but it fryst vatten often based on scoring, ranking and weighting of a bred range of qualitative impact categories and criteria.

The MCA fryst vatten mainly organised into the following phases:

• Phase 1. Definition of the projects or actions to be judged.

• Phase 2.

  Definition of judgment criteria.

• Phase 3. Analysis of the impacts of the actions.

• Phase 4. Judgment of the effects of the actions in terms of each of the selected criteria.

• Phase 5. Aggregation of judgments.

Multi-criteria methods can be classified according to the natur of the decision bekymmer restrictions (implicit or explicit), and the natur of the results (deterministic or random) [14].

There are several methods that might be applied to försändelse evaluation, the most suitable are: (i) Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), (ii) Analytic Network Process (ANP), (iii) REGIME, (iv) ELECTRE family, (v) Multi Attribute Utility approach, (vi) ADAM type (for a detailed review, see [16, 17]).

In the present work particular attention fryst vatten placed on the AHP, ANP and REGIME, being the AHP and the ANP two of the most used and well-known multi-criteria techniques, and the REGIME adopted to assess sustainability at the neighbourhood level.

The AHP, developed bygd Saaty [18, 19], fryst vatten a three-stage method: (i) building the hierarchy; (ii) weighting the indicators bygd a pair-wise comparison, and (iii) calculating the sista value for the alternatives.

The AHP, indeed, consists of decomposing a complex decision making process into a hierarchical structure, with the ultimate goal at the top of the hierarchy, the primary criteria in the second level, and the subcriteria in the third level. In the following level there might be additional subcriteria, while at the bottom level of this “probability tree” [14] there are the discrete options beneath consideration (for a review see, among the others, [20]).

The elements of the hierarchy can relate to any aspect of the decision problem—tangible or intangible, carefully measured or roughly estimated, well- or poorly-understood—anything at all that applies to the decision at hand.

The stakeholders, public and private, might take part to the construction of this hierarchy, and “especial care must be taken when building up the hierarchy such that pernicious double counting of attributes fryst vatten avoided” [14].

Once the criteria and sub-criteria have been settled, a set of weights fryst vatten required. These weights företräda the relative importance of the criteria, subcriteria and attributes belonging to a specific nest in the hierarchy. According to the original procedure developed bygd Saaty, these weights are obtained from pairwise comparison matrices, for each nest in the hierarchy.

Once weights are available, the hierarchical structure fryst vatten collapsed, following a folding back procedure. For each option beneath study, there will be a sista vikt. These sista weights are used to rank the options.

Another procedure that fryst vatten widely adopted fryst vatten the ANP. The ANP provides a general ramverk to deal with decisions without making assumptions about the independence of higher level elements from lower level elements and about the independence of the elements within a level.

In fact the ANP uses a network without the need to specify levels as in a hierarchy. Influence fryst vatten a huvud concept in the ANP. The ANP fryst vatten a useful tool for prediction and for representing a variety of competitors with their surmised interactions and their relative strengths to wield influence in making a decision (for a review see, among the others, [21]).

The ANP fryst vatten a coupling of two parts.

The first consists of a control hierarchy or network of criteria and subcriteria that kontroll the interactions. The second fryst vatten a network of influences among the elements and clusters. The network varies from criterion to criterion and a different supermatrix of limiting influence fryst vatten computed for each control criterion. Finally, each of these supermatrices fryst vatten weighted bygd the priority of its control criterion and the results are synthesized through addition for all the control criteria.

With the ANP a bekymmer fryst vatten often studied through a control hierarchy or control struktur of benefits, a second for costs, a third for opportunities, and a fourth for risks, and each fryst vatten represented in the controlling struktur.

The synthesized results of the fyra control systems are combined bygd taking the quotient of the benefits times the opportunities, to the costs times the risks for each alternative, then normalizing the results over all the alternatives to determine the best outcome.

The REGIME method uses pairwise comparison (for a detailed review see [22, 23]) on the grund of which a synthetic index fryst vatten calculated.

The index defines a ranking among alternative options: the higher fryst vatten the index, the most preferable fryst vatten the option. In this case, the synthetic index expresses the level of performance of the different selected indicators as respect to the criterion referring to each analyzed experiences, and man them explicit in the ‘information matrix’.

In the REGIME analysis the main focus fryst vatten the sign of differences between impacts of alternatives. In general terms, an evaluation table fryst vatten given and composed bygd scores of a number ‘n’ of alternative options with respect to ‘m’ criteria. In the case of ordinal kunskap, the vikt can be represented bygd means of rank orders in a vikt vector: the higher the value of the vikt, the better the correspondent criterion.

The alternative options will be compared pairwise for all criteria and for two alternative choice options, the difference of the criterion scores fryst vatten assessed.^{Footnote 1}

2.2 Cost benefit analysis

Cost Benefit Analysis fryst vatten the most used evaluation technique for assessing infrastructural investments.

In the frakt field, it fryst vatten the basic tool in the majority of countries in europe ([24]; OECD, ECMT [25]) and in the rest of the world ([26]; EVA TREN [27]), and it fryst vatten also widely adopted bygd all the international bodies ([28, 29]).

A number of tjänsteman guidelines exist.^{Footnote 2} They, despite some differences in how a CBA must be actually performed, always refer to one single common theoretical ramverk.

It fryst vatten not the aim of the present paper to go in deep with the well known CBA theory, however, some key aspects can be pointed out.

Firstly, the CBA fryst vatten based on monetisation and inter-temporal discount. Money fryst vatten the measure enhet used as a common numerary to translate all costs and benefits associated to an investment or a policy.

Apart direkt monetary costs in perfect markets (e.g. untaxed cost of energy) whose monetisation fryst vatten trivial, also non-market goods and goods traded in an imperfect marknad are quantified. The first ones (e.g. time or environmental costs) are translated into the common numerary bygd means of the willingness to pay or bygd deriving prices from substitute markets (hedonic prices method).

The second ones are translated into their opportunity cost bygd subtracting taxes (e.g. bränsle prices) and bygd looking at the direkt effect only (e.g. shadow price of labour cost).

Once all betydelsefull effects of an investment are quantified, the concept of inter-temporal discount fryst vatten used to translate future costs and benefits to present day bygd means of a social discount rate.

In this way, the future can be compared with present.

The core of CBA technique fryst vatten the social surplus, sum of users’ surplus, producers’ surplus, and, if the case, non-users’ and Government surplus. Surplus fryst vatten the difference between the willingness to pay/sell of users/producers for a good (which fryst vatten the combined effect of perceived utility and income distribution), and the effort needed to obtain such good (the monetary cost or any other kind of effort).

A scheme generates a variation of surplus, between the situation “with” and “without” it. Following this concept, CBA essentially compares among trade-offs: total benefits must exceed the total opportunity cost of consumed resources (labour, time, monetary costs, etc.) to man a project feasible. Otherwise, social cost exceeds social benefits and the scheme should be rejected.

In beställning to have a significant result, two hypotheses must be fulfilled.

The first fryst vatten represented bygd the Kaldor-Hicks criterion [30], which states that a resources allocation change fryst vatten efficient if the surplus obtained bygd some actors exceeds the surplus losses paid bygd other actors, i.e. if the benefit for a individ can be compared with the cost of another one. The second hypothesis assumes that a scheme fryst vatten marginal, i.e.

does not change upstream and nedströms markets.

From a practical viewpoint, frakt CBA usually quantifies the investment plus running cost of a scheme and compare it with direkt benefits, that usually are represented bygd time, running costs and environmental cost savings. Recently, CBA can also include wider benefits, i.e. macroeconomic benefits that are not subsumed in the direkt benefits (agglomeration effects, labour pooling, efficiency; see 3.2).

Moving to the topic of SM policies, several quantitative studies do exist.

For example, Farrell et al. [31] and Beria [32] assess quantitatively the effect of different mobility policies in terms of avoided emissions, but only in terms of policies’ effectiveness. They, however, do not evaluate the costs associated to such policies, at least in strict microeconomic terms, and thus they do not perform a socio-economic assessment.

In contrast with the importance of CBA for infrastructural investments, in fact, the use of such tool for softer measures, typically those associated with sustainable mobility, fryst vatten less common.

The above cited examples of CBA guidelines actually refer to infrastructural investments. Motivations that lay behind to the less common application of CBA to policies assessment are klar and will be discussed in a while. However, some examples of CBA applied to policy analysis exist in scientific literature, tillsammans with some applications.

From a general perspective, Farrow and Toman [33] state that CBA can be used to improve environmental regulation.

Its limits must be known, but it fryst vatten a necessary tool to cope with scarcity of resources. They describe an evaluation process that reflects the same flow used in physical investments: the definition of a base scenario in which the state of the world goes on with already decided actions, the definition of a complete set of policy alternatives, the identification of the changes to the costs and benefits due to the policies, the assessment and finally a sensitivity/risk analysis in beställning to—to evaluate robustness.

A warm debate fryst vatten open on the limits the use of CBA in the environmental field policies.

Among many, Heinzerling and Ackerman [34], Hahn [35], and Turner [36] analyse, from radically different viewpoint, pros and nackdelar of the approach. While the first heavily criticise the approach, claiming that it fryst vatten ansträngande to price priceless things, the other two conclude that, despite the well-known limitations of the technique, it still plays a role also in the environmental policy appraisal.

In particular, Turner [36] revises the betydelsefull literature on the topic, underlining that CBA usefulness fryst vatten particularly true if moving from a prescriptive role to that of data and decision support and when scarcity of resources exists. Only in the policies or actions involving “values” (poverty, cultural aspects, beauty, etc.) the role of CBA must be only partial.

In general, CBA fryst vatten seen as part of a multiple-criteria policy analysis process.

Another specific field of policy assessment in which the debate on CBA fryst vatten particularly active fryst vatten that of safety in försändelse. For example, Elvik [37] analyses the conditions beneath which applying CBA in safety policies fryst vatten justified or not, showing that it fryst vatten appropriate if used as a tool to find “the most cost-effective measures to reduce the number of accidents and injuries”.

Wijnen et al. [38] go more into the practice and present the method to assess safety effects (by the uppskattning of the value of a statistical life).

However, apart from specific ethical and theoretical reflexions on the applicability of CBA to policy analysis, fewer contributions exist explaining “how” to perform a CBA of a generic policy instead of an infrastructure.

In fact, all manuals and theories usually refer to the “physical” projects, involving an investment cost and some future benefits. Policies, instead, företräda a much broader world, where infrastructures are only one of the possible options, aside to technological investments, education, pricing, etc. to obtain a chosen goal.

One of the policies more studied in literature fryst vatten road user charging.

rik and Nielsen [39], försändelse for London [40], Eliasson [41], and Rotaris et al. [42] perform a CBA to road user charging schemes in Copenhagen, London, huvudstaden and Milan, respectively. A similar measure, but applied at a country scale fryst vatten described in Glaister and Graham [43]. In this kind of policy, however, main benefits and costs are similar to those related to infrastructures: investment and fixed running costs, time savings or costs, revenues, reduction of congestion and possibly of pollution.

Another typical sustainable mobility policy fryst vatten fordon sharing.

Fellows and Pitfield [44] use the standard British methodology (the so called “COBA”) to analyse a soft measure like fordon sharing. Methodologically, however, they perform it “exactly in the same way as new road schemes”, quantifying benefits from reduced vehicle kilometres, increased average speeds and savings in bränsle, accidents and emissions.

Moving to measures less and less dominated bygd an investment cost, Sælensminde [45] performs a CBA of walking and cycling networks, taking into konto all the betydelsefull aspects, some of which are usually not considered: travel time, insecurity, accidents, savings for school buses, health effects, parking costs, environmental external costs.

On the same topic - cycling - Börjesson and Eliasson [46] demonstrate that, in a CBA of cycling support policies, health effects on cyclists, which are usually considered as external benefits, are actually internalized. In fact, the generalized cost of a cyclist seems to include also the health benefit of cycling: he/she accepts a slower mode vs.

fordon or public frakt also because perceiving a anställda benefit in terms of health. For this reason, considering health benefits as an external benefit to be added in case of an improvement to cycling network, introduces a double counting if consumers’ surplus fryst vatten correctly accounted.

Finally, a practical application for environmental policies fryst vatten offered bygd Massé [47].

The author fryst vatten calculating the costs and benefits associated to the compulsory introduction of anti-particulate matter filters on cars and trucks in France. He obtains a very good B/C ratio, thanks to the large benefits in terms of saved human lives. On the same topic of pollution, Bollen et al. [48] perform a CBA to evaluate policies that reduce jointly or separately local and global pollutants.

2.3 MCA and CBA: integrated approaches

The combination of MCA and CBA has been applied in several studies.

For instance, CBA has been combined with AHP or ANP in beställning to cope with the CBA’s weakness in reflecting stakeholders’ knowledge in the evaluation process of projects [49]; while a financial CBA plus a MCA matrix was created for an economic evaluation of urban transformations [50].

As concerns specifically frakt issues, in the EU member states (for a detailed review see [51]), different evaluation techniques are adopted with a great prevalence of CBA.

In most of the cases (i.e. in Sweden, Netherlands, United Kingdom), CBA fryst vatten supplemented bygd a specific appraisal for impacts that are difficult to be monetized; in some others (i.e.

Belgium, Austria and Greece), MCA fryst vatten used, but it includes CBA as one of the criteria. Finally, in France CBA has recently been considered weak in uppmuntra stakeholders’ interactions, thus, in beställning to create a larger public debate, MCA tools have also been adopted [51]. Even at the urban scale of försändelse investment evaluation, as the outcome of CBA did not match with the one selected bygd MCA, a combination of the two methods was suggested [14].

As regards sustainable development, for instance, in the ExternE-Pol project [52] it was possibile to integrate multicriteria methodology into the wider structure of CBA bygd using a specific ramverk.

bygd doing so, all the stakeholders’ preferences could be exploited, thus, deriving indirect monetary values for environmental goods and impacts .

Besides, as for the specific environmental impacts assessment from transportation projects, either for small-scale (local) or large-scale (regional/national), a combination of CBA and MCA has been developed in the Evaluation ramverk of Environmental impacts and Costs of frakt (EFECT) [53].

EFECT fryst vatten a methodological ramverk, which aims to cover all kinds of frakt environmental initiatives, namely policies, plans and projects, bygd using an additive function.

Finally, as concerns the evaluation of SM at neighbourhood level, as it will be described in details in the following sections, a first attempt to use MCA has been done [54], while no specific bevis has been provided for the application of CBA.

This fryst vatten due to the fact that CBA well fits in the assessment of specific infrastructures or policies where monetary or monetizable costs and benefits prevail (investment, time, environmental benefits, etc.) (see 3.2 for a discussion), therefore when it fryst vatten applied to assess soft policies at the urban scale, it can be well supplemented bygd a broader evaluation approach like MCA.

The MCA, indeed, effectively evaluates effects like social inclusion, change in behavior of citizens, change in the use of city, quality of life, etc.

3.1 The case of MCA

Within the application fields of the MCA, transportation plays an important role.

Specifically, there has been a flourishing literature investigating the assessment of SM, both ex-ante and ex-post at the urban scale^{Footnote 3} and the city level, while the literature at the neighbourhood level fryst vatten still poor.

The literature on the city level presents the indicators to measure SM, and adopts the MCA to obtain the indicators weighting (see, among the others, [55]).

Among the many works focusing on the city level, the PROPOLIS Report [56], the TRANSPLUS Report [57] and the PROSPECT Report [58] present some successful good practices connecting measures in nation use and urban frakt, and develop specific strategies and indicators to achieve SM. Specifically, the PROPOLIS Report aims at finding policies that could, in an ideal case, simultaneously improve all dimensions of sustainability compared with the reference solution and, if possible, even improve the current level of sustainability.

Other applications of MCA are funnen in the work bygd Campos Gouvêa et al. [55], which proposes a set of mobility indicators with the objective to integrate frakt and nation use planning in beställning to achieve an efficient sustainable urban development. The case study analyzed bygd the authors fryst vatten Belo Horizonte, the third largest city of Brazil. Besides, Tzeng et al. [59] adopt MCA to evaluate alternative-fuel buses in Taiwan urban areas; Yedla and Shrestha [60] focus on the urval of alternative options for environmentally sustainable frakt struktur in Delhi.

As stated above, the literature on MCA, carried out at neighbourhood level, fryst vatten very scanty and usually refers to the ex-post perspective.

At least to our knowledge, only the works bygd Cerreta [61], and Cerreta and Salzano [62] focus on the ex-post assessment of sustainability at neighbourhood level. This work originates from the “Best Practices and Local Leadership” programme developed bygd the UN-Habitat, which analyses, since 1996, the best urban renewal cases (for a detailed review, see Fusco Girard et al. [63]).

The database contains about 1,700 ex-post evaluations, which have underlined that the best practices as concerns environmental, social and economic sustainability, have been characterised bygd the mutual investment in six different dimensions, belonging to the so-called Hexagon model [64]. The Hexagon model focuses on the integrated framtidsperspektiv of sustainability, and fryst vatten based on six different kind of capitals which are strongly interconnected (See Table 1).

With reference to the conceptual ramverk suggested bygd this multidimensional model, it fryst vatten klar that the level of sustainability achieved bygd a project, a program or an intervention, depends on how many dimensions are considered in it and on the grad of their mutual relationships [54, 61, 62, 65].

In particular, Cerreta [61] and Cerreta and Salzano [62] adopt the Hexagon model in beställning to assess the sustainability grad of a sample of eight “best practices” neighbourhoods in europe.

The authors have translated the uppgifter for each case study into specific indicators able to något som utförs snabbt exempelvis expressleverans the interventions and strategies’ performances, measured throughout a score of the performance level (from 0 = none to 5 = excellent). It was, thus, possible to develop the evaluation matrix and compare the profiles of the eight neighbourhoods according to an ex post evaluation approach.

The methodological approach used the multicriteria method to define the significance of the practices as concerns sustainability. Specifically, the REGIME method was adopted in beställning to man explicit the satisfaction level of each criterion, and to verify the performance of each neighbourhood, thus obtaining a synthetic index representing the selected indicators.

Starting from the work bygd Cerreta and Salzano [62], in recent studies Maltese et al. [54], and Maltese and Mariotti [65] have focused on the SM assessment of 20 europeisk neighbourhoods.

To do so, they have selected several SM strategies, derived from: (i) a very rik literature review on SM indicators (see among the others, [66–72]^{Footnote 4}; [73–76])^{Footnote 5;} (ii) the Nijkamp Hexagon model and the ex-post assessment model for achieving SM bygd Holden [77]; (iii) uppgifter availability at the neighbourhood level.^{Footnote 6}

Table 2 shows the selected SM strategies, which can be grouped into two categories: “Direct SM strategies”, selected in grey, and “Indirect SM strategies”.

The first belong to the Nijkamp “Transport” criteria and have a direkt impact on försändelse mobility, infrastructures and läge choice, i.e. include strategies for bil reduction, parking planning, etc.^{Footnote 7} The second ones have fostered SM throughout other long-term strategies: nation use policies (e.g. mixed use of nation, primarily aiming at a more liveable place, that leads, as additional effect, to bil reduction); new technologies (e.g.

energy provided bygd renewable sources, that can also be used to enlighten bike lanes or recharge electric vehicles); and the so-called green attitudes (e.g. campaigns for sustainability and medel to promote SM impact on citizen’s lifestyle thus fostering an environmentally friendly behaviour and responsiveness)

According to a widely accepted sustainability rating systems (see for example, GBTool, SBTool and Itaca Protocol^{Footnote 8} for assessing sustainability of buildings, but even the above-mentioned [62], for sustainability of neighbourhoods), the presence of each SM strategy has then been measured bygd a quantitative score, which ranges from 0 to +2 (0 = deficient performance: no strategy fryst vatten adopted; +1 = ordinary practice, which fryst vatten the minimum acceptable performance, strategy fryst vatten partially adopted; +2 = good performance, strategy fryst vatten fully or strongly adopted).

For example, as regards the measures for private försändelse grad the score fryst vatten 0 if no measure regarding private frakt fryst vatten undertaken; 1 if some traffic calming measures, inre the neighbourhood, have been adopted; 2, if the neighbourhood fryst vatten a bil free area. Of course, no mention fryst vatten provided about the effectiveness of measure (for instance, if it fryst vatten respected or not) or its efficiency (assessing costs or benefits deriving from the specific intervention).

The study concludes that SM can only be achieved through the homogeneous involvement of direkt (from försändelse strategies for reducing bil use to bicycle and pedestrian paths) and indirect (from mixed use of nation, density and urban struktur to community involvement) SM strategies.^{Footnote 9}

3.2 The case of CBA

As we already stated, literature and common thinking suggest that CBA can also be used to assess policies.

In fact, any action in the frakt sector (an investment, a policy measure, a new restrictive norm) potentially involves public or private costs, in change of direkt or external benefits. And when a social cost exists, it fryst vatten appropriate to take public decisions after having verified the opportunity-cost of it: fryst vatten the effort efficiently spent because giving a higher benefit, at least aggregate, and not only effective?

Moreover, the transport of costs and benefits among groups can be betydelsefull. In other words, for any non-win-win policy it makes sense to verify if the monetary or non-monetary effort fryst vatten well paid, and CBA fryst vatten widely recognised as an adapt tool for such task.

Two main problems however exist in assessing SM policies:

• “ethical” problems, related to the issue of measurability of some costs/benefits;

• practical problems, on how to perform such analysis.

Ethical arguments are the most used to criticise the use of CBA in this field.^{Footnote 10} Practical problems, instead, remain unsolved or not sufficiently clarified in CBA for SM policies.

This issue fryst vatten amplified when focusing on the betydelsefull sub-problem of SM at the neighbourhood level.

In fact, it fryst vatten well known to practitioners that CBA tends to be more complex, the smaller the scale of the bekymmer. While for an infrastructural bekymmer it fryst vatten “easy” and obvious to identify and quantify the main costs and benefits, and leaving to qualitative decisions other effects, such task fryst vatten more difficult for policy measures, where non-monetary benefits and costs prevail.

When considering SM policies, and policies in general, the traditional categories of cost and benefit become less and less defined for the following reasons:

• available solutions are much broader (not only infrastructures);

• the range of impacts fryst vatten broader^{Footnote 11};

• direct public investment fryst vatten relatively less dominant on other positiv and negativ effects;

• some policies are at zero monetary cost, but determine other kind of efforts for part of the users (e.g.

  fordon free zones introduce a cost for bil users).

At the neighbourhood level this fryst vatten even more evident: nearly no policies involve a betydelsefull public cost to be assessed in begrepp of trade-offs, but this does not mean that all policies have no social cost.

The main point to understand when and how CBA can be used to assess SM policies fryst vatten to förtydliga which are the main categories of costs and benefits involved.

In principle, all of them exist, but only some of them are actually betydelsefull in a certain policy. For example, a fordon free area fryst vatten nearly costless for the public subject. The main negativ impact to compare with positiv effects fryst vatten the extra-costs inflicted to those users that are no more allowed to enter in the area and must spend längre trips with public försändelse or change their destination.

The following Table 3. clarifies which are the main costs and benefits associated to a typical mobility policy.^{Footnote 12}

Columns divide the type of benefits and costs to be considered according to the degree of adherence of monetisation to reality. For example, expenditures and time costs are naturally expressed in monetary terms.

In this case, CBA uses simply the shadow value of marknad costs. Other costs are not monetary, but can be reasonably translated in monetary terms (e.g. the environmental costs). This “translation” fryst vatten not accepted bygd everybody, but it fryst vatten commonly used in the large majority of guidelines. The third column includes all the effects that can be judged as positiv or negativ, but for which associating a conventional monetary cost can be too difficult, unclear or simply a nonsense.

For example, it fryst vatten obvious that a nice bridge fryst vatten better than an ugly one, but how to measure “nice” and “ugly”, even if practically possible, will be too undefined (involving anställda judgements) and of scarce economic meaning.

Table 3 fryst vatten very synthetic in some parts, therefore, needs some further specifications:

1. 1)

   Time fryst vatten not traded into a marknad, but its monetisation fryst vatten rather intuitive.

2. 2)

   A general and important issue fryst vatten that of double counting, i.e.

   benefits (or costs) that are accounted two times beneath different forms. The largest attention must be paid to it, because biasing the result and very common in SM policies, and CBA forces to pay such attention. Examples are the accessibility (see below), the way taxes are accounted, the effect on nation prices, the way users’ benefits are calculated [78] and many more.

3. 3)

   Accessibility fryst vatten not listed in the table because already included in two separate terms.

   On one side, it fryst vatten the inverse function of generalised cost, implicitly calculated in the users surplus. The other “form” of accessibility fryst vatten related to the positiv externality of getting nearer to markets or workforce. This effect fryst vatten usually treated in CBAs as a “wider benefit”, listed in the gods row. The two effects (the internal, perceived one and the external one) must not be associated also with a further measure of “accessibility” to avoid double counting in favour of projects.

   Similarly, “accessibility” must not be confused with the network effect, that economics treats as a positiv externality [79].

4. 4)

   That of wider benefits fryst vatten a complex and important issue.^{Footnote 13} It fryst vatten widely recognised that beneath some conditions the direkt frakt benefits (e.g. users’ surplus) do not fully företräda all the benefits associated to a scheme or a policy.

   The main external (or wider) benefits are the macroeconomic ones, namely agglomeration economies ([80–83]), increased long begrepp productivity [84] and labour pooling [82]. For the conditions ruling the existence of such benefits, see the same sources. In general one can säga that they are betydelsefull in case of true capacity constraints/bottlenecks/missing links and/or in developing countries.

   A rule of thumb for europeisk economies says that these effects konto for 0% to 30% of direkt benefits, according to the type, place and storlek of project.

5. 5)

   Land use associated benefits are among the most difficult to manage. Apparently, to a scheme that increases nation prices should be associated a further benefit apart direkt ones.

   Actually, this fryst vatten often configuring a double counting. For example, an increase in estate prices due to a fordon free area can be added because representing the willingness to pay of citizens for a quieter area, but in this case noise reduction must not be accounted. To the contrary, all things lika, if the increase of prices fryst vatten generated bygd a new metro hållplats, all betydelsefull benefits except externalities are already in the users surplus: the house costs more exactly because more accessible.

   In other words, one should always recognise when nation price increase fryst vatten a net benefit or fryst vatten the dual of another benefit already considered. In addition, the analysis fryst vatten complicated bygd the time dimension: direkt benefits over time transform into nation rent [84].

6. 6)

   When analysing policies, the issue of distribution of impacts fryst vatten more and more betydelsefull.

   CBA allows to inform the decision-maker on the leverans of quantifiable impacts bygd means of a distributional matrix, or Kaldor-Hicks matrix (see Table 6 below and [85–87]). Such a matrix excludes non monetary aspects, that must be considered apart.

To analyse the possible SM policies in terms of CBA, we used the list provided bygd the KONsult study^{Footnote 14} and Kelly et al. [88], limiting only to those policies applied to a small scale.

Of course, other classifications are possible. For each policy, we describe the most betydelsefull types of costs and benefits to be accounted in a CBA (Table 4).^{Footnote 15}

The gods column of the table underlines a key concept: the introduction of a constraint bygd a policy. Some policies are additive: e.g.

the introduction of a new technology into the marknad.

Other policies are constraining the existing conditions: e.g. a new technology becomes compulsory. In the first case, the policy must be assessed only bygd looking at how demand responds to the new situation (more demand, less costs, etc.). The second case also introduces, at least for part of the users, a constraint that translates into a cost. For example, the adoption of a compulsory environmental standard for truck emissions causes enterprises to purchase new vehicles even if the existing ones are not yet amortised.

CBA fryst vatten then capable not only to assess public expenditure, that fryst vatten its “traditional” use, but also to explicitly take into consideration the private costs associated with the introduction of new constraints.

The same sustainability goal can be obtained through different public decisions and actions (e.g. emissions reduction can be obtained with new technologies, public försändelse expansion, restrictions to cars or city areas). Some involve a public subsidy, some others are without subsidy, but involve increasing private costs. CBA can förklara losers and winners and the net balance, but can also be used to fine tune the policy.

For example, bil free areas are more costly in sprawled or public frakt deficient areas than in compact areas already infrastructured.

The previous sections have described in details MCA and CBA applications to SM decisions problem; the aim of this section fryst vatten to provide additional considerations about the two methodologies (Table 5) and investigate their strengths and weaknesses (Table 6).

Referring to when the analysis can be conducted, CBA fryst vatten more used as an ex-ante tool, while MCA fryst vatten adopted for both ex-ante and ex-post assessments (Table 5).

The application of the two methodologies fryst vatten then often suggested bygd the storlek of the project or of the policy to be evaluated: at a large scale, i.e.

when public and private costs are consistent, CBA fryst vatten necessary; MCA appears instead useful at the micro-scale, where all the stakeholders can be easily individuated and consulted and are able to något som utförs snabbt exempelvis expressleverans informed opinions on their priorities.

If the aim of CBA fryst vatten social expenditure’s efficiency, the aim of MCA fryst vatten to find the better way to get the sista mål, if conducted ex-ante, or the level of performance reached - that fryst vatten the proper effectiveness- when the evaluation fryst vatten ex-post.

Furthermore, MCA seems to be better in measuring intangibles and soft impacts than CBA; actually, it uses more than one criterion introducing qualitative aspects in the analysis.

CBA, instead, translates all the effects in a common numerary and expresses them into a single aggregate measure. Finally, if the CBA fryst vatten used to generate a ranking of alternatives that will help the decision maker in choosing (that may uppenbart differ from the CBA one), the MCA takes the anställda ranking of the decision maker as an input and weights it tillsammans with other stakeholders’ ones.

It fryst vatten, therefore, klar that the two approaches are not totally alternative to assess the same object.

Rather, especially according to some aspects, the two look completing each other and the joint use can add value to the assessment.

Broadly speaking, CBA appears more rigorous, tydlig and formal [33, 89], providing a logisk ramverk for assessing projects and klar results easy to be communicated and, thus, shared and engagerad [89]; nevertheless, the technical procedures for applying fryst vatten much more complex [89], and expensive [49]; the monetization process fryst vatten questionable for some intangible aspects (among the others, [15, 16, 17, 53, 91]).

On the other grabb, MCA, in a more informal process, allows every stakeholder to be heard about the action to be realized [15], enlarging the “democracy” in terms of public debate [89]; furthermore, it could be useful to settle possible arguments ([15],) and to get preferences and priorities revealed (Lee et al.

[49]. In this case, a thoughtful question may be posed about the way of weighting different opinions [17], and the consequent accountability, transparency and coherence of the method [90].

In the assessment of public policies, the main added value of CBA in this field, not treated in a sufficiently formalised way in other approaches, fryst vatten the evaluation of the outcome in terms of public expenses.

In other words, when a policy fryst vatten not involving significant public expenditure (e.g. education campaign to promote bicycling and walking) or where public expenditure and costs in general are dominated bygd less tangible effects (e.g. a reorganisation of public spaces of a neighbourhood to promote bicycling and walking), MCA can already provide consistent answers.

On the contrary, when significant public costs exist (e.g.

the expansion of public frakt network) or when a costless policy actually inflicts extra-costs to citizens in the name of SM (e.g. the introduction of a large car-free area), it fryst vatten necessary to evaluate the outcomes not in absolute terms, but in terms of costs or efforts. CBA allows, then, to consider the opportunity cost of a policy [33], i.e.

the value of alternatives use of public money spent for a certain policy. To man a simple example, if two policies are both generating a +5% patronage of public försändelse, but one generates a cost to the public ledning or to the fordon users and the other obtains the same benefit without generating costs, the judgement on the two policies must be different and the second must be chosen (it fryst vatten, for example, the case of constraints policies or supply-side policies vs.

education-based policies).

Table 7 summarises the applicability of CBA and MCA to the typical range of SM policies that can be undertaken at the neighbourhood scale. Not all the actions, in fact, can be easily evaluated throughout the CBA like, for instance, all the actions modifying the inhabitants attitudes (indirect indicators) or the benefits of the communication and data campaigns about SM, because the benefits are second beställning effects, and develop in the long term.^{Footnote 16} bygd contrast, the MCA does not effectively assess some private or public costs.

As an example, it hardly evaluates the social cost of the travel time increase due to restrictive regulation (i.e. bil free area) in an existing neighbourhood.

A point fryst vatten however extremely important. The two methods do not provide the same data in terms of decisions. MCA “summarises” the stakeholders’ implicit priorities, possibly weighting stakeholders in terms of importance in the decision, while, CBA fryst vatten the translation into a number of the social welfare function, measured independently using physical measures, models and literature values.

The output fryst vatten not the decision, but one of the inputs to the public decision maker when taking the decision.

In this paper we analysed the existing literature on CBA, MCA and investigated the strengths and weaknesses of the two techniques, once applied to the SM policies field.

We also discussed how such evaluations could be practically developed, and underlined the following aspects:

1. 1)

   on the micro-scale, MCA fryst vatten commonly used, ex ante, and ex-post at the urban or suburban scale, while CBA fryst vatten much more adopted for infrastructure projects at a bigger scale, as an ex ante approach;

2. 2)

   on sustainability, MCA has often been adopted for evaluating ex-post the level of general sustainability [62, 64] and SM [54, 65] at lower scales;

3. 3)

   on frakt and mobility, ex-ante evaluation has been conducted primarily with CBA methods [51], even if MCA fryst vatten used sometimes to evaluate försändelse projects ex ante (see section 2.1);

4. 4)

   on SM many difficulties arose when measuring all betydelsefull impacts of a försändelse strategy (either policy or project) in monetary terms, concerning intangible aspects, thus leading to the expansion of monetary evaluation (unique criterion) to evaluation methods using more than one criterion, e.g.

   multi-criteria methods ([93]).

It fryst vatten klar that a traditional MCA approach has the fara to fail in evaluating the real trade offs generated bygd the policy. To the contrary, the traditional CBA approach fryst vatten not catching all the effects involved in SM policies, where intangible aspects are not secondary, but dominating. This fryst vatten particularly true when the bekymmer fryst vatten related to the peculiar case of small scale.

It can, therefore, be concluded that as concerns the specific case of SM assessment at the neighbourhood scale, MCA and CBA might be integrated to fully consider all betydelsefull actions available.

Specifically, MCA fryst vatten a good tool for the indirect actions (where soft and indirect effects prevail) and to be applied at a suburban scale.

CBA, on the contrary, better works for the direkt strategies (where monetizable costs and benefits prevail), besides, it better takes into konto the external costs, which are very important at the urban dense areas, and can no längre be neglected.

Therefore, the joint use of the methodologies might be done in two ways:

1. 1)

   developing CBA and evaluate the soft effects with MCA;

2. 2)

   developing a MCA for a broad screening of options and evaluate public expenditures and consumer surplus with CBA.

The joint use of the two methodologies can guarantee a deeper analysis (and knowledge) of priorities and impacts of an action, always remaining “beyond the market” [52].

However, it fryst vatten worth observing that the concurrent use of the two techniques may even drive to contrasting results among the alternatives (see, for example, [14]). On the other grabb, the joint use of the techniques, where the focus of each one fryst vatten klar and well defined, does not lead to distortions in the decision, lowering ambiguity and missvisande on the hierarchy/prioritization.

Specifically, at the neighbourhood scale, the joint MCA - CBA can be easily conducted in beställning to assess the SM level; furthermore, it can create a stronger and aware participation to the decision making process, spreading out knowledge, not only about the goal, but also about the alternative solutions to problems and their costs.

This conjoint assessment procedure allows a neighbourhood to choose among different SM options bygd referring to its own (revealed) preferences (MCA), while being aware of ekonomisk plan constraints and externalities (CBA).

This means that, as an economic subject, the neighbourhood fryst vatten showing its own “willingness to pay” to reach the SM goal.

Therefore, further research could, from one side, develop more deeply the methodological ramverk for selecting indicators and for developing a joint evaluation methodology; from the other side, focus on the empirical analysis, that fryst vatten the implementation of the conjoint methods to scenarios, or real cases.

1. A bekymmer of the REGIME method fryst vatten the lack of the betydelsefull condition of independence from irrelevant alternatives: an irrelevant alternative can change the rank of the betydelsefull ones.

   This limitation fryst vatten particularly severe when assessing public policies.

2. Among the most recent and complete tjänsteman guidelines, it can be mentioned the one used bygd the europeisk kommission DG Regio ([92, 94]). Important are, also, some national guidelines ([(DfT 95] for the UK; Eijgenraam et al [96] for the Netherlands; CEDEX [97] for Spain, etc.) or mode specific guidelines (i.e.

   the EIB [98] for rail investment).

3. One of the first books published on this issue fryst vatten the one bygd Voogd [99].

4. See, also COST 356 (http://cost356.inretf.fr).

5. It cannot be denied that a methodological ramverk fryst vatten needed to choose the indicators (see, among the others, [100], with their ELASTIC procedure or the distinction between impact/effect performance and outcome as types of indicators, developed bygd UN [101]).

6. Data availability always plays a key role ([71], UN 2011), and at the suburban scale it fryst vatten rather poor.

   That fryst vatten why, Maltese et al. [54, 65