An assessment of interventions for improving communication and trust in cost benefit analysis processes

References

• AckermanF, HeinzerlingL. 2002. Pricing the priceless. Cost-benefit analysis of environmental protection. U Pa L Rev. 150(5):1553–1584.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AkgünAE, LynnGS, ByrneJC. 2003. Organizational learning: a socio-cognitive framework. Hum Relat. 56:839–868.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AllmendingerP. 2002. Towards a post-positivist typology of planning theory. Plan Theory. 1:77–99.
   Google Scholar
• AnnemaJA, KoopmansC, van WeeB. 2007. Evaluating transport infrastructure investments: the Dutch experience with a standardized approach. Transport Rev. 27(2):125–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ArgyrisC. 1977. Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review. September–October:115–125.
   Google Scholar
• ArgyrisC. 1991. Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review. May 4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BanisterD. 2008. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Pol. 15(2):73–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BertoliniL, Le ClercqF, StraatemeierT. 2008. Urban transportation planning in transition (introduction to the theme issue). Transport Pol. 15(2):69–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BeukersE, BertoliniL, Te BrömmelstroetM. 2012. Why cost benefit analysis is perceived as a problematic tool for assessment of transport plans: a process perspective. Transport Res A Pol Pract. 46(1):68–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BeukersE, BertoliniL, Te BrömmelstroetM. 2014. Using cost benefit analysis as a learning process: identifying interventions for improving communication and trust. Transport Pol. 31:61–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bestuursregio Utrecht. 2012. Snel, betrouwbaar en effectief. OV-visie voor de regio Utrecht [Quick, reliable, and effective. Public transport vision for the Utrecht region]. Utrecht: Bestuursregio Utrecht.
   Google Scholar
• BrymanA.2008. Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• CurtisC. 2008. Planning for sustainable accessibility: the implementation challenge. Transport Pol. 15(2):104–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DamartR, RoyB. 2009. The uses of cost-benefit analysis in public transportation decision making in France. Transport Pol. 16(4):200–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [ECMT] European Conference of Ministers of Transport. 2004. Assessment & decision making for sustainable transport. European Conference of Ministers of Transport, London, UK.
   Google Scholar
• EdelenbosJ, KlijnEH. 2007. Trust in complex decision-making networks. A theoretical and empirical exploration. Admin Soc. 39:25–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EliassonJ, LundbergM. 2010. Do cost-benefit analyses influence transport investment decisions? Experiences from the Swedish transport investment plan, 2010–2021 Twelfth World Conference on Transport Research; July 11–15; Lisbon, Portugal.
   Google Scholar
• ForesterJ. 1987. Planning in the face of conflict. J Am Plan Assoc.53(3):303–314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ForesterJ. 1999. The deliberative practitioner. Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• HandySL. 2008. Regional transportation planning in the US: an examination of changes in technical aspects of the planning process in response to changing goals. Transport Pol. 15(2):113–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HealeyP. 1999. Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning, and shaping places. J Plan Educ Res. 19(2):111–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HealeyP. 2007. Urban complexity and spatial strategies. Towards a relational planning for our times. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• HealeyP. 2009. In search of the ‘strategic’ in spatial strategy making. Plan Theory Pract. 10:439–457.
   Google Scholar
• HullA, AlexanderER, KhakeeA, WoltjerJ, editors. 2011. Evaluation for participation and sustainability in planning. Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• HuxleyM, YiftachelO.2000. New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory. J Plan Educ Res. 19(4):333–342.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• InnesJE. 1998. Information in communicative planning. J Am Plan Assoc.64:52–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• InnesJE, BooherDE. 2003. Collaborative policymaking: governance through dialogue. In: HajerMA, WagenaarH, editors. Deliberative policy analysis. Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; p. 33–59.
   Google Scholar
• JongDM, GeerlingsH. 2003. Exposing weaknesses in interactive planning: the remarkable return of comprehensive policy analysis in The Netherlands. Imp Assess Proj Appraisal. 21:281–291.
   Google Scholar
• KhakeeA. 2003. The emerging gap between evaluation research and practice. Evaluation. 9(3):340–352.
   Google Scholar
• KiddS, FisherTB. 2007. Towards sustainability: is integrated appraisal a step in the right direction?Environ Plan C Gov Pol. 25:233–249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LanderMC, PurvisRL, McCrayGE, LeighW. 2004. Trust-building mechanisms utilized in outsourced IS development projects: a case study. Inform Manage. 41:509–528.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LaurianL. 2009. Trust in planning: Theoretical and practical considerations for participatory and deliberative planning. Plan Theory Pract. 10:369–391.
   Google Scholar
• MackieP. 2010. Cost-benefit analysis in transport: a UK perspective. Mexico: International Transport Forum.
   Google Scholar
• MackieP, PrestonJ. 1998. Twenty-one sources of error and bias in transport appraisal. Transport Pol. 5:1–7.
   Google Scholar
• MartinsenJA, OdeckJ, KjerkreitA. 2010. Why benefit-cost analyses matter less and how it can be improved for decision making in the transport sector – experiences from the Norwegian National Transport Plan 2010–2019. London: Association for European Transport and Contributors.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-SaundersA, PopeJ, GunnJAE, BondA, RetiefF. 2014. Strengthening impact assessment: a call for integration and focus. Imp Assess Proj Appraisal. 32(1):2–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MouterN, AnnemaJA, Van WeeB. 2013. Ranking the substantive problems in the Dutch cost-benefit analysis practice. Transport Res A.49:241–255.
   Google Scholar
• Municipality of Amsterdam. 2008. Amsterdamse OV-visie 2008–2020. Een enkeltje Topstad[Amsterdam public transport vision 2008–2020. A one way ticket to top city]. Gemeente Amsterdam: Dienst Infrastructuur Verkeer en Vervoer.
   Google Scholar
• NaessP. 2006. Cost-benefit analyses of transportation investments. Neither critical nor realistic. J Crit Real. 5:32–60.
   Google Scholar
• NonakaI, KonnoN. 1998. The concept of ‘Ba’: building a foundation for knowledge creation. Calif Manage Rev. 40:40–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NonakaI, ToyamaR, KonnoN. 2000. SECI, ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Plan. 33:5–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NonakaI, Von KroghG, VoelpelS. 2006. Organizational knowledge creation theory: evolutionary paths and future advances. Organ Stud. 27:1179–1208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OdgaardT, KellyC, LairdJ. 2005. Current practice in project appraisal in Europe. White Rose Research Online, University of Leeds, Sheffield & York.
   Google Scholar
• OwensS, RaynerT, BinaO.2004. New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory, practice and research. Environ Plan A. 36:1943–1959.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PageM, KellyC, MayA, JonesP, ForresterJ. 2009. Enhancing appraisal methods to support sustainable transport and land use policies. Eur J Transport Infrastruct Res.9:296–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PawsonR, TillyN. 1997. Realistic evaluation. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• RunhaarH, DriessenPJ. 2007. What makes strategic environmental assessment successful environmental assessment? The role of context in the contribution of SEA to decision-making. Imp Assess Proj Appraisal. 25(1):2–14.
   Google Scholar
• SaarikoskiH. 2000. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) as collaborative learning process. Environ Imp Assess Rev. 20(6):681–700.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SagerT, RavlumIA. 2005. The political relevance of planners' analysis: the case of a parliamentary standing committee. Plan Theory. 4:33–65.
   Google Scholar
• SchönDA. 1983. The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
   Google Scholar
• SelicatoF, MaggioG. 2011. The evaluation process for a new planning culture: Regulatory compliance and learning opportunities. In: HullA, AlexanderER, KhakeeA, WoltjerJ, editors. Evaluation for participation and sustainability in planning. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Stichting Experiment Volkshuisvesting. 2010. Effectenarena. Den Haag: Stichting Experiment Volkshuisvesting.
   Google Scholar
• StraatemeierT, BertoliniL. 2008. Joint accessibility design: framework developed with practitioners to integrate land use and transport planning in the Netherlands. Transport Res Rec.2077:1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• StraatemeierT, BertoliniL, Te BrömmelstroetM, HoetjesP. 2010. An experiential approach to research in planning. Environ Plan B Plan Des. 37:578–591.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• StoeglehnerG, BrownAL, KørnøvLB. 2009. SEA and planning: ‘ownership’ of strategic environmental assessment by the planners is the key to its effectiveness. Imp Assess Proj Appraisal. 27(2):111–120.
   Google Scholar
• Van AkenJ. 2004. Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: the quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. J Manage Stud.41(2):219–246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van BuurenA, NooteboomS. 2009. Evaluating strategic environmental assessment in the Netherlands: content, process and procedure as indissoluble criteria for effectiveness. Imp Assess Proj Appraisal.27(2):145–154.
   Google Scholar
• Van WeeB. 2011. Transport and ethics. Ethics and the evaluation of transport policies and projects. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Van WeeB, MolinE. 2012. Transport and ethics: dilemmas for CBA researchers. An interview-based study from the Netherlands. Transport Pol. 24:30–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VaughanWJ, RussellCS, RodriguezDJ, DarlingAC. 2000. Uncertainty in cost-benefit analysis based on referendum contingent valuation. Imp Assess Proj Appraisal. 18(2):125–137.
   Google Scholar
• VeistenK, ElvikR, BaxC. 2010. Assessing conceptions of cost-benefit analysis among road safety decision-makers: misunderstandings or disputes?Imp Assess Proj Appraisal. 28(1):57–67.
   Google Scholar
• VickermanR. 2000. Evaluation methodologies for transport projects in the United Kingdom. Transport Pol. 7:7–16.
   Google Scholar
• WillsonR. 2001. Assessing communicative rationality as a transportation planning paradigm. Transportation. 28:1–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ZillerA, PhibbsP. 2003. Integrating social impacts into cost-benefit analysis: a participative method: case study: the NSW area assistance scheme. Imp Assess Proj Appraisal. 21(2):141–146.
   Google Scholar