Taking steps toward healthy & sustainable transport investment: A systematic review of economic evaluations in the academic literature on large-scale active transport infrastructure

IF 3.1 3区 工程技术 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Madison Bland , Matthew I. Burke , Kelly Bertolaccini
{"title":"Taking steps toward healthy & sustainable transport investment: A systematic review of economic evaluations in the academic literature on large-scale active transport infrastructure","authors":"Madison Bland ,&nbsp;Matthew I. Burke ,&nbsp;Kelly Bertolaccini","doi":"10.1080/15568318.2023.2296952","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>For cities seeking to promote active transport, overcoming the institutional practices of car-centric planning and investment is critical to redistributing funds toward dedicated walking and cycling infrastructure. Slowly, urban policy and research are expanding traditional mobility-centric economic evaluations beyond major road and rail projects. This review paper of the academic literature employs a systematic quantitative literature review (SQLR) methodology and contributes an up-to-date examination of academic economic evaluations undertaken on large-scale active transport infrastructure implementations (i.e. capital costs greater than USD$3 million as of 2022). Seventeen (17) peer-reviewed academic papers were included in the final analysis. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA), followed by cost-effective analysis (CEA) and health impact assessment (HIA), were the most common pre-implementation (<em>ex ante</em>) and post-implementation (<em>ex post</em>) assessment methods. Between implementation-types, contexts, and methodologies, the parameters factored in econometric evaluations present a large degree of variance. Despite this, all studies demonstrated the positive return on investment in large-scale active transport infrastructure, where all CBAs produced benefit-cost ratios greater than the breakeven threshold (i.e. &gt;1). Results show health parameters contribute the greatest benefit to positive evaluations, accounting for 77% of total benefits (and 67% in the CBA papers). However, evaluations inconsistently factor or omit long-term, intergenerational, and non-mobility benefits that highlight a partiality in their approach and can be co-opted to support predetermined outcomes. Further research must seek to establish if more expansive, sustainability-orientated methods are needed, or whether to adopt policy positions acknowledging the positive returns walking and cycling infrastructure deliver.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47824,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Sustainable Transportation","volume":"18 3","pages":"Pages 201-220"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Sustainable Transportation","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S1556831823001715","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

For cities seeking to promote active transport, overcoming the institutional practices of car-centric planning and investment is critical to redistributing funds toward dedicated walking and cycling infrastructure. Slowly, urban policy and research are expanding traditional mobility-centric economic evaluations beyond major road and rail projects. This review paper of the academic literature employs a systematic quantitative literature review (SQLR) methodology and contributes an up-to-date examination of academic economic evaluations undertaken on large-scale active transport infrastructure implementations (i.e. capital costs greater than USD$3 million as of 2022). Seventeen (17) peer-reviewed academic papers were included in the final analysis. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA), followed by cost-effective analysis (CEA) and health impact assessment (HIA), were the most common pre-implementation (ex ante) and post-implementation (ex post) assessment methods. Between implementation-types, contexts, and methodologies, the parameters factored in econometric evaluations present a large degree of variance. Despite this, all studies demonstrated the positive return on investment in large-scale active transport infrastructure, where all CBAs produced benefit-cost ratios greater than the breakeven threshold (i.e. >1). Results show health parameters contribute the greatest benefit to positive evaluations, accounting for 77% of total benefits (and 67% in the CBA papers). However, evaluations inconsistently factor or omit long-term, intergenerational, and non-mobility benefits that highlight a partiality in their approach and can be co-opted to support predetermined outcomes. Further research must seek to establish if more expansive, sustainability-orientated methods are needed, or whether to adopt policy positions acknowledging the positive returns walking and cycling infrastructure deliver.

向健康和可持续交通投资迈进:大规模主动式交通基础设施学术文献经济评估系统回顾
对于寻求推广积极交通的城市而言,克服以汽车为中心的规划和投资的制度性做法,对于将资金重新分配到专用的步行和自行车基础设施至关重要。慢慢地,城市政策和研究将传统的以机动性为中心的经济评估扩展到了主要公路和铁路项目之外。这篇学术文献综述论文采用了系统定量文献综述(SQLR)方法,对大规模主动交通基础设施实施(即截至 2022 年资本成本超过 300 万美元)的学术经济评估进行了最新研究。最终分析包括 17 篇经同行评审的学术论文。成本效益分析(CBA)、成本效益分析(CEA)和健康影响评估(HIA)是最常见的实施前(事前)和实施后(事后)评估方法。在不同的实施类型、背景和方法之间,计量经济学评估所考虑的参数存在很大差异。尽管如此,所有研究都表明大规模主动交通基础设施的投资回报是积极的,所有成本效益分析得出的效益成本比都大于盈亏平衡临界值(即 1)。结果表明,健康参数对积极评价的贡献最大,占总收益的 77%(在成本效益分析论文中占 67%)。然而,评价中不一致地考虑或忽略了长期、代际和非流动性效益,这凸显了其方法的偏颇性,并可能被用来支持预先确定的结果。进一步的研究必须设法确定是否需要更广泛的、以可持续性为导向的方法,或者是否要采取承认步行和自行车基础设施带来的积极回报的政策立场。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
2.60%
发文量
56
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Sustainable Transportation provides a discussion forum for the exchange of new and innovative ideas on sustainable transportation research in the context of environmental, economical, social, and engineering aspects, as well as current and future interactions of transportation systems and other urban subsystems. The scope includes the examination of overall sustainability of any transportation system, including its infrastructure, vehicle, operation, and maintenance; the integration of social science disciplines, engineering, and information technology with transportation; the understanding of the comparative aspects of different transportation systems from a global perspective; qualitative and quantitative transportation studies; and case studies, surveys, and expository papers in an international or local context. Equal emphasis is placed on the problems of sustainable transportation that are associated with passenger and freight transportation modes in both industrialized and non-industrialized areas. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial evaluation by the Editors and, if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert reviewers. All peer review is single-blind. Submissions are made online via ScholarOne Manuscripts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信