详情

原文传递 ANALYSIS OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OF WATERWAY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

题名：	ANALYSIS OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OF WATERWAY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
作者：	A.F.P.A. RITECO; N.C. HOEFSLOOT
关键词：	COSTS ; BENEFITS ; WATERWAY ; INFRASTRUCTURE
摘要：	In the Netherlands there is great interest in the transport potential of rivers and canals. As the waterways have a high transport capacity, relative to roads, and as inland navigation is relatively environment-friendly, authorities are prepared to invest in the waterways. Government decision-making about these high-cost projects is highly complex and funding is limited. For several years, a comparative method has been researched to identify the costs and benefits of these investments, to support decision-making. The government is not only interested in economic costs and benefits, but also societal costs and benefits, for example those related to the environmental impact The Research Programme on the Economic Effects of the Infrastructure (Onderzoekprogramma Economische Effecten Infrastructuur, OEEI) produced a broadly accepted guideline for drawing up Societal Cost-Benefit Analyses (Maatschappelijke Kostenbatenanalyses, MKBA). This guideline requires that each project be systematically analysed. A dedicated guideline has been drawn up for cost-benefit analyses of waterway projects, which describes the stages and aspects specific to waterways. The project impact may lead to both societal benefits and costs. When all costs and benefits are quantified and expressed in financial terms, we obtain a single project return indicator expressing the societal failure of the project. Unfortunately, there are always impacts which are difficult to quantify, let alone expressible in financial terms. Hence, according to the guideline, impacts which cannot be expressed in financial terms or even expressed in units, should also be presented in addition to the return indicator. The OEEI guideline is now being used quite regularly. The comparison of the regional waterways was a study fully devoted to waterways. These waterways were the Burgemeester Delenkanaal, a canal at Oss, the Meppelerdiep and the Zaan River. These projects are particularly important at the regional level, but in view of their location and the relatively limited transport volumes (from 1.6 to 4.7 million tonnes) these projects are not a priority at the national level. However, the Dutch government funds a large portion of these projects. Hence, a comparison was made to base the choice on the societal return. In each of the three cases, two alternative versions of the project were assessed. The differences between the projects and their environments complicated the assessment of the project impact. The projects concerned different measures (changes to the waterway, civil engineering structures, waterway management) and their environments varied greatly. This was carefully considered when estimating the future developments on the waterway (data required to quantify the impact) and the impact. When there are major differences between projects, there is always the risk that the impact can be expressed in financial terms for one project, but not for another. In that case, the return indicators will also be greatly different, but this does not say anything about the overall societal values of the projects.
总页数：	Proceedings of the 30th PIANC-AIPCN Congress. Sydney Australia. 22-26 Sept. 2002. pp15
报告类型：	科技报告