Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Journal of Advanced Transportation
Volume 2018, Article ID 9267306, 22 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9267306
Research Article

Engaging Multiple Actors in Large-Scale Transport Infrastructure Project Appraisal: An Application of MAMCA to the Case of HS2 High-Speed Rail

1Department of Planning, Aalborg University, A.C. Meyers Vænge 15, 2450 Copenhagen SV, Denmark
2Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute (RASEI), University of Colorado at Boulder, 027 UCB, SEEC Suite N321, Boulder, CO 80309-0027, USA
3CONCITO, Kattesundet 4, 3rd Floor, 1458 Copenhagen K, Denmark
4DTU Management Engineering, Produktionstorvet, Bygning 424, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark

Correspondence should be addressed to Yannick Cornet; kd.uaa.nalp@kcinnay

Received 30 December 2017; Accepted 19 July 2018; Published 14 August 2018

Academic Editor: Zhi-Chun Li

Copyright © 2018 Yannick Cornet et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. T. B. Fischer, “Strategic environmental assessment and transport planning: Towards a generic framework for evaluating practice and developing guidance,” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 183–197, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. Steer Davies Gleave, “High Speed Rail: International Comparisons (Final Report),” http://cfit.independent.gov.uk/pubs/2004/hsr/research/pdf/hsr.pdf, 2004.
  3. R. Hickman and M. Dean, “Incomplete cost – incomplete benefit analysis in transport appraisal,” Transport Reviews, pp. 1–21, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. G. Dudley and D. Banister, “Expertise and the Dynamics of Decision Making in Large Infrastructure Projects: From UK Trunk Roads to High Speed Rail 2,” in Proceedings of the Paper presented at the UTSG Conference, vol. 2, pp. 1–15, City University, London, 2015.
  5. M. B. Barfod, K. B. Salling, and S. Leleur, “Composite decision support by combining cost-benefit and multi-criteria decision analysis,” Decision Support Systems, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 167–175, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. C. MacHaris, L. Turcksin, and K. Lebeau, “Multi actor multi criteria analysis (MAMCA) as a tool to support sustainable decisions: State of use,” Decision Support Systems, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 610–620, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. C. Macharis, A. De Witte, and J. Ampe, “The multi-actor, multi-criteria analysis methodology (MAMCA) for the evaluation of transport projects: Theory and practice,” Journal of Advanced Transportation, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 183–202, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. D. Banister, “Policy on Sustainable Transport in England: The Case of High Speed 2,” European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, vol. 3, no. 18, pp. 262–275, 2018. View at Google Scholar
  9. Y. Cornet, G. Dudley, and D. Banister, “High Speed Rail: Implications for carbon emissions and biodiversity,” Case Studies on Transport Policy, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. A. Korzhenevych et al., Update of the Handbook on External Costs of Transport: Final Report, 2014, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/sustainable/studies/sustainable_en.htm.
  11. P. Mackie, T. Worsley, and J. Eliasson, “Transport appraisal revisited,” Research in Transportation Economics, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 3–18, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. E. Beukers, L. Bertolini, and M. Te Brömmelstroet, “Why Cost Benefit Analysis is perceived as a problematic tool for assessment of transport plans: A process perspective,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 68–78, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. P. Mackie and J. Preston, “Twenty-one sources of error and bias in transport project appraisal,” Transport Policy, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. A. Gühnemann, J. J. Laird, and A. D. Pearman, “Combining cost-benefit and multi-criteria analysis to prioritise a national road infrastructure programme,” Transport Policy, vol. 23, pp. 15–24, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. S. Damart and B. Roy, “The uses of cost-benefit analysis in public transportation decision-making in France,” Transport Policy, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 200–212, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. K. Martens, “Substance precedes methodology: On cost-benefit analysis and equity,” Transportation, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 959–974, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. K. De Brucker, C. MacHaris, and A. Verbeke, “Multi-criteria analysis and the resolution of sustainable development dilemmas: a stakeholder management approach,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 224, no. 1, pp. 122–131, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. R. Vickerman, “Cost - benefit analysis and large-scale infrastructure projects: State of the art and challenges,” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 598–610, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. HS2 Ltd, The Strategic Case for HS2, 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/the-strategic-case-for-hs2.
  20. HS2 Ltd, Review of HS2 London to West Midlands Route Selection and Speed - A report to Government by HS2 Ltd, 2012, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-hs2-london-to-west-midlands-route-selection-and-speed.
  21. Atkins, High Speed Rail Strategic Alternatives Study - Update Following Consultation, 2012, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-speed-rail-strategic-alternatives-study-update-following-consultation.
  22. HS2 Ltd, London-West Midlands Environmental Statement: Volume 5 Technical Appendices Alternatives Report, 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-phase-one-environmental-statement-volume-5-alternatives-report.
  23. M. J. Barradale and Y. Cornet, “Developing assessment criteria for sustainable transport appraisal,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2018. View at Google Scholar
  24. D. L. Olson, G. Fliedner, and K. Currie, “Comparison of the Rembrandt system with Analytic Hiearchy Process,” European Journal of Operational Research, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  25. D. Browne and L. Ryan, “Comparative analysis of evaluation techniques for transport policies,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 226–233, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. M. B. Barfod and K. B. Salling, “A new composite decision support framework for strategic and sustainable transport appraisals,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 72, pp. 1–15, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. V. Belton and T. J. Stewart, Multi Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach, Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, UK, 2002.
  28. P. Goodwin and G. Wright, Decision Analysis for Management Judgment, John Wiley & Sons, UK, 4th edition, 2009.
  29. Deparment for Transport, Transport Analysis Guidance (WebTAG), 2014, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transport-analysis-guidance-webtag.
  30. Department for Transport, TAG Unit A1.1: Cost-Benefit Analysis, 2014, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/webtag-tag-unit-a1-1-cost-benefit-analysis-november-2014.
  31. Department for Transport, Guidance for the Technical Project Manager, 2014, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/webtag-tag-guidance-for-the-technical-project-manager.
  32. HS2 Ltd, HS2 Phase One environmental statement: documents, 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hs2-phase-one-environmental-statement-documents.
  33. J. A. Soria-Lara, L. Bertolini, and M. te Brömmelstroet, “An experiential approach to improving the integration of knowledge during EIA in transport planning,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 56, pp. 188–199, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. C. Macharis and A. Bernardini, “Reviewing the use of multi-criteria decision analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach,” Transport Policy, vol. 37, pp. 177–186, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. K. De Brucker, C. Macharis, and A. Verbeke, “Multi-criteria analysis in transport project evaluation: an institutional approach,” European Transport, vol. 47, pp. 3–24, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  36. D. von Winterfeldt and W. Edwards, Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research, Cambridge University Press, 1986.
  37. H. Gudmundsson, R. P. Hall, G. Marsden, and J. Zietsman, Sustainable Transportation - Indicators, Frameworks, and Performance Management, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  38. Booz & Co. and Temple, HS2 London to the West Midlands Appraisal of Sustainability, 2011, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20111005090740/http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/library/documents/appraisal-sustainability.
  39. Y. Cornet, M. B. Barfod, M. J. Barradale, and R. Hickman, “Giving current and future generations a real voice: a practical method for constructing sustainability viewpoints in transport appraisal,” European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, vol. 3, no. 18, pp. 316–339, 2018. View at Google Scholar
  40. F. A. Lootsma, “The REMBRANDT system for multi-criteria decision analysis via pair wise comparisons or direct rating,” Report 92-05, 1992. View at Google Scholar
  41. C. Zopounidis and P. M. Pardalos, Handbook of Multicriteria Analysis, Springer, 2010.
  42. O. S. Vaidya and S. Kumar, “Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 169, no. 1, pp. 1–29, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  43. F. A. Lootsma, Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis via Ratio and Difference Judgement, vol. 29 of Applied Optimization, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  44. F. A. Lootsma, “Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative AHP and SMART,” Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 87–110, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. G. Montibeller and D. von Winterfeldt, “Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis,” Risk Analysis, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 1230–1251, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. T. L. Saaty, Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytical Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World, The Analytical Hierarchy Process, 2001.
  47. House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, HS2 and the environment (HC 1076), 2014, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenvaud/1076/1076.pdf.
  48. D. Banister, “The sustainable mobility paradigm,” Transport Policy, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 73–80, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. G. Guest, A. Bunce, and L. Johnson, “How many interviews are enough?: An experiment with data saturation and variability,” Field Methods, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 59–82, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  50. R. Fisher, W. L. Ury, and B. Patton, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving in, Penguin Books, 2011.
  51. Y. Cornet, Indicators and Beyond: Assessing the Sustainability of Transport Projects [PhD thesis], 2016, http://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/indicators-and-beyond-assessing-the-sustainability-of-transport-projects(28a1965e-d8f4-4d35-af02-28000ab530e8).html.
  52. M. R. Pryn, Y. Cornet, and K. B. Salling, “Applying sustainability theory to transport infrastructure assessment using a multiplicative ahp decision support model,” Transport, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 330–341, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus