4.7 Article

Evaluating the European added value of TEN-T projects: a methodological proposal based on spatial spillovers, accessibility and GIS

期刊

JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT GEOGRAPHY
卷 19, 期 4, 页码 840-850

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.10.011

关键词

European value added (EVA); Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T); Trans-national projects; Project appraisal; Spatial spillovers; Accessibility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper develops a methodology for calculating the European value added value (EVA) generated by transport infrastructure projects. This approach is particularly useful for evaluating projects in the framework of Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T), although it may also be used in trans-national projects in other geographical areas. The methodology is based on the appraisal of spatial spillovers generated by trans-national projects by using accessibility indicators (access to markets) and Geographical Information Systems (GIS). Projects are split into sections and spillover effects of each section are then computed. The sections that produce a high proportion of spillovers in relation to internal benefits generate a high EVA. Additionally, indicators are obtained of the effects of each section in terms of spatial concentration on the different countries affected, efficiency (general improvement in accessibility) and territorial cohesion (reduction in accessibility disparities between regions). The validity of this approach is verified by applying it to TEN-T priority project 25. This methodology does not seek to replace existing project appraisal methodologies (particularly the cost-benefit analysis); rather it provides complementary data for decision-making. Sections which are scarcely profitable from the cost-benefit analysis perspective but which have high European value added should receive more European funding than more profitable sections of markedly national interest. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据