Beta 1


Title A comparative Study of four Approches to Transport Decision_Making
Author Petersen, Nikolaj Berg
Andersen, Maj-Britt Köppen
Supervisor Leleur, Steen (Beslutningsmodelgruppen, Center for Trafik og Transport, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, DTU, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark)
Salling, Kim Bang (Beslutningsmodelgruppen, Center for Trafik og Transport, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, DTU, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark)
Jensen, Anders Vestergaard (Beslutningsmodelgruppen, Center for Trafik og Transport, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, DTU, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark)
Institution Technical University of Denmark, DTU, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
Thesis level Master's thesis
Year 2006
Abstract This project aims to clarify the virtues and deficiencies of four different approaches to transport appraisal. Transport appraisal is the process of examining the benefits and drawbacks of a project, leading to a choice of the best project. It is investigated whether the four approaches are efficient tools that are easy to use, transparent and adequate. The investigation is based on a case study from the Danish town of Allerød north of Copenhagen. In the case, four different alternatives of a ring road around the town are considered. The four approaches studied explore the area between appraisals fully based on monetary values and appraisals completely ignoring monetary values. Two of the methods examined are currently in use, one in Denmark and one in England. The Danish method exemplifies the use of monetary values in a cost-benefit analysis (CBA), while the English method is an example of how to include both monetary and non-monetary criteria in an analysis. A multi-criteria analysis (MCA) using a method called SMARTER is done as an example of a method completely ignoring monetary values. The fourth approach, COSIMA, aims to combine a cost-benefit analysis and a multi criteria analysis. As three of the methods described need input from the decision makers during the process and leave choices to the decision makers, the case study is done with three different policy strategies. The Danish method turns out to be compound of a CBA part that is considerably transparent and well-known to decision makers and of a part considering relatively vague assessments of non-valued criteria without any specific guidance on how to combine the knowledge from the two parts. Decision making based on the CBA is easy despite this problem as the appraisal provides a ranking of the alternatives and a best solution. At first glance, the English method seems very transparent and very thorough. This turns out to be true only part of the way. The appraisal provides enormous amounts of knowledge to the decision makers. This information is ordered in a simple way, providing all important information to the decision makers on a single sheet. However, the method does not provide any specific guidelines on how to use all this information, making the final decision unclear. The SMARTER analysis relies heavily on the decision makers. A majority of the steps in SMARTER is based on choices made by the decision makers, making it difficult to ensure transparency. SMARTER has a great advantage in being able to include all relevant criteria, but makes large demands with regard to resources and descriptions of the choices made. COSIMA brings together the virtues and deficiencies of the CBA and SMARTER. The method is transparent, though the decision is dependent on the preferences and policies of the decision maker as the calculations use weights assigned to the criteria. The investigations show that a final decision regarding the ring road in Allerød depends on the method chosen as decision support. Only if the Danish method is used, one single alternative is suggested as the best solution. The three other methods are dependent on the choices of a decision maker, and in many cases, the policy strategies applied provide different results. This highlights the need for descriptions of the choices made to ensure transparency in the decision making. Abstract The methods in use today in Denmark and England both leave room for improvement. The Danish method has difficulties including all important criteria in the appraisal, while the English method can be un-transparent in the final step of choosing the best alternative. In the future, the COSIMA approach could be a possible extension of the current Danish method, as it combines the well-known CBA with an assessment of the important criteria that today cannot be included in the CBA. The English method could be improved through the inclusion of the MCA as a supporting tool.
Abstract Dette projekt undersøger fordele og ulemper ved fire forskellige vurderingsmetoder indenfor transport-planlægning. Projektet belyser, hvorledes vurderings-metoderne lever op til krav om at være tilstrækkelige hjælpemidler, der inkluderer al nødvendig viden, er gennemskuelige og lette at anvende. De fire vurderings-metoder afprøves på en case omhandlende en ringvej vest om Allerød. Fire mulige alternativer til ringvejen under-søges, og tre forskellige politiske tilgangsvinkler af-prøves for at belyse sammenhængen mellem vurderingsmetode, politisk tilgang og resultat. De fire metoder undersøgt i denne rapport belyser feltet mellem vurderinger, der benytter værdi-satte effekter til økonomiske beregninger og vurderinger, der ikke benytter sig af økonomisk værdisættelse til sammenligning af alternativer. To af de undersøgte metoder benyttes i dag, den ene i Danmark og den anden i England. Den danske metode benytter sig af værdisatte effekter i en cost-benefit analyse mens den engelske metode benytter både værdisatte og ikke-værdisatte effekter i en såkaldt logical-framework analyse. Udover disse metoder undersøges en multi-kriterie analyse, der ikke benytter sig af værdisættelse og en COSIMA analyse, der kombinerer cost-benefit analyser og multi-kriterie analyser. Den danske metode består af en meget gennemskuelig del, der baseres på værdiberegninger i cost-benefit analyser og af en mindre gennemskuelig del, der inddrager effekter, der ikke kan værdisættes. Herved er det muligt at inddrage al nødvendig viden, men det er ikke angivet præcist, hvordan ikke værdisatte effekter skal inddrages. CBA’en er den vigtigste del af analysen, men inddragelsen af de ikke-værdisatte effekter kan gøre analysen mindre overskuelig. Den engelske metode virker i første omgang meget gennemtænkt og overskuelig da den kan inddrage alle tænkelige effekter og har en gennemarbejdet opbygning. Således er beskrivelsen af effekterne meget gennemskuelig, men metoden mangler en klar henvisning til, hvordan effekterne skal forholdes til hinanden. Det kan derfor være svært at sikre gennemskueligheden i det endelige valg. Multi-kriterie analyser kan inkludere alle relevante effekter, og det er muligt at tilpasse undersøgelsen til lokale forhold. Vurderingen af de enkelte effekter og deres betydning i det enkelte projekt er helt afhængig af beslutnings-tagerne, hvilket kræver beskrivelser af de foretagne valg, så gennemskueligheden sikres. COSIMA analyser kan inklu-dere alle relevante effekter. Beregningerne er simple, hvilket gør metoden let at anvende, men også i denne me-tode har beslutningstagerne et ansvar for at gøre metoden gennemskuelig, da der undervejs skal foretages forskellige vægtninger. Undersøgelserne i dette projekt viser, at valget af vurderingsmetode er afgørende for udfaldet af projektvurderingen. Dette eksemplificeres af, at de fire afprøvede metoder giver forskellige resultater, således at flere alternativer teoretisk kan udvælges som værende det bedste. Kun den danske metode giver et klart svar på, hvilket alternativ, der er bedst, da den i høj grad er baseret på cost-benefit raten. De tre andre metoder giver forskellige resultater alt efter beslutningstagernes politiske tilgangsvinkel. De undersøgte metoder kan med fordel forbindes. COSIMA vil således være en forbedring af den danske metode, mens den engelske metode kan forbedres med en multi-kriterie analyse, idet den kan give den gennemskuelighed i det endelig valg, der mangler i dag.
Pages 105
Fulltext
Original PDF Nikolaj_Maj_Britt.pdf (2.75 MB)
Admin Creation date: 2006-07-21    Update date: 2007-03-28    Source: dtu    ID: 190385    Original MXD