چرا تحلیل هزینه - منفعت به عنوان یک ابزار مشکل ساز برای ارزیابی برنامه های حمل و نقل درک شده است؟:دیدگاه فرایند

Academic discussions on Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) as an appraisal instrument for integrated land use and transportation plans tend to focus on its technical aspects. However, many issues of CBA also arise from process related matters, especially when assessing integrated plans. Using an inductive research design, we explored how these process related issues play out in Dutch planning practices. In two applied research techniques, focus group sessions and open in depth interviews, we focused on process related issues as perceived by CBA participants ranging from plan makers to CBA testers. This article presents the different perceptions of issues in CBA processes. Through these collected perspectives, we found that these issues are multi-layered and present a number of fundamental dilemmas. After relating our empirical data to theory, we conclude that the biggest challenge lies in decreasing the level of mistrust and communication deficits revealed between plan owners and CBA calculators and their respective frames of thinking when assessing complex integrated land use and transportation plans.

Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is a widely used ex-ante evaluation tool to support the decision making on infrastructure plans and others. Its aim is to provide an integral overview of the (estimated) costs and benefits of alternative plans, and to translate them as much as possible into monetary terms for comparison (Brent, 1996). Based on these qualities, the CBA has become a widely used instrument for the appraisal and evaluation of large infrastructure projects in many countries (Haezendonck, 2007, Mackie, 2010, May et al., 2008, Odgaard et al., 2005, Rotaris et al., 2010 and Vickerman, 2000). In the Netherlands, the role of CBA in the decision-making process has become increasingly important. It was already obligatory for large infrastructure plans (co-)funded by the Dutch national government (in: Annema et al., 2007, De Jong and Geerlings, 2003 and Eijgenraam et al., 2000). Since 2007, it also has been obligatory for the assessment of integrated spatial infrastructure plans, because of the merging of the governmental budgets for these sectors (Ministry of transport and water management and Ministry of housing spatial planning and the environment, 2009). This means that all local and regional spatial infrastructure plans requiring national funding need to go through a CBA assessment. Through this, the national government prioritizes proposed plans and decides which ones are funded. Although a positive CBA balance is not a formal requirement for approved funding, these planning regulations do give the CBA a central role in Dutch planning and decision-making processes. Although widely used, CBA is also contested as being inadequate for appraising transport-related plans (Annema et al., 2007, De Jong and Geerlings, 2003, ECMT, 2004, Mackie and Preston, 1998, Naess, 2006, Priemus et al., 2008 and Wee, 2006). Academic literature identifies a number of aspects of CBA that underlie this critique. These include disputable calculation methods for translating soft variables like quality of nature into money, or leaving these effects out of the analysis altogether (Mackie and Preston, 1998); missing information about winners and losers (the distribution effects) and ignoring equity issues (Ackerman and Heinzerling, 2002); missing information about expected synergy and agglomeration effects (Wee, 2006); poorly constructed reference cases (Annema et al., 2007, De Jong and Geerlings, 2003, Naess, 2006 and Wee, 2006); poor incorporation of uncertainties (Salling and Banister, 2009 and Ševcíková et al., 2011); and too much focus on how infrastructure can help solve traffic bottlenecks (i.e. decreased travel time) and too little on how it can support a vision for spatial economic developments (ECMT, 2004 and Van Wee et al., 2006). The last problem is perhaps not surprising if we consider the intrinsic difficulty of measuring such effects. According to Mackie (2010), it is very difficult to appraise the effect of investment in infrastructure on the regional economy. Moreover, Mackie states that “the interaction between transport and the wider economy, and its treatment in appraisal, is one of the most lively current topics” (Mackie, 2010, p.19). Although these are important issues, it is questionable whether solving these technical, content-related issues alone will be enough to reverse the antagonistic attitude that many planning actors have towards the use of the instrument itself. CBAs, especially when applied to integrated land use and transportation plans, may cause several tensions and frustrations in planning practices. Different participants who operate in CBA processes do not agree on how the analysis should be understood and used, and it appears unclear what role CBA should be allowed to play in infrastructure decision-making processes. As such, we can state that along with the aforementioned technical aspects, there might be process-related issues that cause the controversy surrounding the CBA in transport planning. There is, however, only limited attention given to process-related issues in academic debate.

This article started with mapping the problematic relation between the growing importance of the CBA instrument and its controversy in Dutch planning practices. It emphasized that CBA literature tends to focus on content-related issues instead of the CBA process and possible related issues. The aim of the research presented in this article was to narrow this knowledge gap on CBA processes and to gain insight into perceptions on process-related issues by CBA participants in Dutch planning practice. Through our inductive research approach, several issues and dilemmas in the CBA process were pointed out, explained, and reflected upon with the help of planning literature. That the CBA and its process are perceived as problematic and characterized as frustrating when applied to assess complex infrastructure plans must not come as a surprise. It appears to be a logical result of clashing values and approaches. This dichotomy helps to explain and understand many of the issues explored: deficient communication among ‘plan owners’ and ‘calculators’; the fear that ‘hard’ effects dominate over ‘soft’ effects in decision making; the characterization of CBA as a black box; the occurrence of strategic behavior in relation to CBA input and output; the experience of time pressure in the CBA process because of the underestimation of the length of discussions on assumptions and starting points; the use of the CBA as final assessment, too late in the planning process; and having too little room for uncertainties and nuance in the decision-making process. Moreover, the dichotomy between plan owners and calculators explains the two problems connecting most of the fundamental issues that were expressed: the mistrust between plan owners and calculators towards each other and the plan or instrument which they represent and, furthermore, how this leads to a communication deficit and inferior cooperation. The research findings show that awareness of process-related issues and dilemmas is crucial if we want to improve the use of CBAs to assess integrated land use and transportation plans. The main challenge from a process perspective is then to narrow the exposed gap between planners and economists and their related frames of thinking and assessment. Moreover, the level of trust should be increased so that effective communication and cooperation between participants in the process could be improved. The in-depth understanding of the CBA process issues discussed in this paper forms a stepping stone for future research, which should be directed at identifying theoretical solutions for the problems as described and finding out how these theoretical solutions may work in practice.