How suitable is CBA for the ex-ante evaluation of transport projects and policies? A discussion from the perspective of ethics

153 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The methodologies, geographies, and technologies of energy justice: a systematic and comprehensive review (2021, background): “One of the main criticisms is that CBAs have difficulty incorporating ethical considerations (van Wee 2012), such as procedural and distributive aspects, which are important for the social acceptance of sustainable energy policies (Sovacool and Dworkin 2015, Sovacool et al 2016).”
A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches (2016, background): “Despite its popularity, traditional CBA has come under regular criticism within the transport literatures for a variety of reasons (see, for example, Thomopoulos et al. 2009; Grant-Muller et al. 2001; Sagoff 1988; Gardiner 2006; Van Wee 2012).”
Distributive justice and equity in transportation (2016, background): “This and other criticisms to utilitarian reasoning in traditional transport planning have been raised by critics of cost–benefit analysis (e.g. Martens, 2011; Van Wee, 2012; Van Wee & Roeser, 2013).”