Planning for a national sustainable transport system is a complex task and with a conflict potential since it involves taking into account a wide range of criteria. In assessment of public policies, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) seems adequate, since it facilitates the use of both qualitative as well as quantitative measurement scales, which makes it possible to address multidisciplinary problems. MCDA has seen a widespread decision-support function in public decision making in sectors such as energy and environment. Over the last decade transport planning, similar to other sector planning, has undergone a change from traditional planning to governance. This together with an increasing emphasis on sustainable development calls for new procedures, institutions and planning tools. Unlike cost-benefit analysis and environmental impact analysis, MCDA is rarely required by national laws or directives. Nonetheless, examples of public support of MCDA can be found: An EU guide points out that MCDA facilitates the participation of all actors and helps reaching a compromise or defining a coalition of views. UK has put a focus on MCDA by publishing a general MCDA guide for official use. Italian law states that MCDA is required as regards project selection for public works. Several examples of use of MCDA in the public domain exist for e.g. Sweden, Portugal and France. This paper evaluates the use of MCDA in national transport planning by its strengths and weaknesses in assessing the impacts of public policy options up for examination within sustainable national transport planning. The evaluation is based on a review of identified relevant literature. The overall key issue of this paper is to highlight the application potential of MCDA in national transport planning and its utility to policymakers engaged in such planning for a sustainable development of the transport system.

1. National sustainable transport
planning – governance with MCDA?
Anders Vestergaard Jensen1, Steen Leleur1 and Joe Zietsman2
1Technical University of Denmark
2Texas A&M University

2. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen2 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
Agenda
• Research context
– SUSTAIN research project
– Sustainability and sustainable planning
– Sustainability assessment
• Sustainability and transport planning
– Two ‘national’ approaches (The UK and Switzerland)
• Case example
– Railway corridor in the Baltic region

3. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen3 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
SUSTAINABILITY

4. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen4 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
SUSTAIN project
• Research objectives:
• How can the concept of sustainability be
operationalised and transformed into strategic
performance measures for national transport
planning?
• How can these types of knowledge about
organisational forms and planning processes
contribute to the achievement of such sustainability
measures?
• And how can these new types of knowledge be built into
new model-based planning tools that can help
advance the strategic planning in the desired sustainable
direction?

5. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen5 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
Deliberate, knowledge-based and
strategic endeavours to integrate
sustainability principles, criteria
and goals in the development,
management, regulation and
assessment of nationally significant
transport systems and services
Three interlinked dimensions:
* Normative
* Analytic
* Governance
National sustainable transport planning

6. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen6 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
Transition towards sustainability
– three dimensions
Dimensions Generic meaning National transport planning
context
Normative The fundamental
ethical principles and
value-orientations of
sustainability
What sustainable transport is,
what the pillars and principles
imply in transport and which
goals to pursue
Analytic Determine whether an
action is sustainable
or not
Knowledge on consequences
for sustainability of possible
interventions, e.g.
infrastructure and transport
service projects
Governance The system of
governance that
should promote and
implement changes
towards sustainability
Organisational forms in the
transport sector, the set-up of
government institutions and
transport planning and
implementation procedures to
promote sustainability

7. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen7 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
The use of MCDA to govern
The quality of policy processes and
policy outcomes comprises multiple
attributes: not only efficiency and
effectiveness, but also:
– Legitimacy
– Democratic character
– Fairness
– Transparency
– Accountability
and other values come into play,
and may even conflict with each
other (Thissen and Walker, 2013).

8. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen8 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
Sustainability
• Wide acceptance of the importance of sustainability
– However, less agreement on how to measure and assess it
– Also differences in how sustainability is defined
Congestion
Traffic safety

9. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen9 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
Sustainability:
Multiple objectives
• Weak/strong sustainability: Trade-offs, minimum requirements
• Governance has been suggested to be added as the fourth
dimension
Social
Economic
Environmental
Sustainability

10. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen10 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
Sustainability assessment (SA) and MCDA
• Indicator based comparativ sustainability assessment
– By the use of MCDA and planning workshops (engagement of
stakeholders)
• The goal for some assessmenst (e.g. EIA) has been to ensure conditions
were not made worse because of a development.
– For SA the focused is on the principles of sustainability, ensuring
developments provide maximum benefits
– Thresholds for indicators to be implemented and managed by MCDA
• SA should focus (in theory) on the longer term.
– In practice, however, short term imperatives are driven by powerfull
economic and political interests and difficult to resist
– A challenge for MCDA – stakeholders representing the future
generations?

11. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen11 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
MCDA and sustainability assessment
MCDA
”One goal – one instrument” is inadequate
Increasing sustainable consideration

12. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen12 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
SUSTAINABILITY, MCDA
AND TRANSPORT
PLANNING

13. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen13 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
Transport and sustainability (Banister 2012)
Established convention – Unsustainable Transport Low carbon mobility – Sustainable Transport
Premised on abundant supplies of energy that can be
reduced through greater efficiency in use
Premised on need to reduce all resource
consumption in transport – particularly oil
Technological solutions to low carbon mobility Technology important, but societal change needed
Market mechanisms can lead to low carbon futures High transport costs politically difficult to implement
Car ownership is still seen as desirable – and should
be accommodated in cities and more widely
New forms of ownership required – sharing, leasing,
renting – parking space reduced in cities
Accepts high levels of mobility and the quantity of
travel, as measured by speed and distance travelled
Focus on accessibility and the quality of travel –
need to reduce travel speeds and distances
Segregation of space between motorised traffic and
other use of street space
Street space seen as a common resource that
should be used flexibly for many different purposes
Concerns over the main mode of transport rather than
the total journey
Concern over door-to-door travel, and the entire
journey experience
Travel time seen as ‘wasted’ time – to be minimised Travel time as having a positive value
Travel decisions seen as choices – rationality Travel decisions as complex assemblages
Accepts trends – transport as a short term issue Vision about the desired city over the longer term
Plans and constructs forecasts of likely demand Pathways towards low carbon mobility and needs
Social and environmental costs valued at less than
economic costs
All three pillars of sustainability important – also
political and public acceptability
Transport instrumental in regeneration and growth Transport not instrumental – but supportive

14. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen14 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
National transport planning & MCDA
• UK: New Approach to Appraisal (NATA)
– The cost-benefit analysis is complemented by assessments of impacts
that are described qualitatively or that can be quantified, but not
monetised

15. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen15 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
Examples of national sustainable planning:
Switzerland
• Switzerland
– Sustainable development strategies since 1997
– Currently the fourth: 2012-2015
– Transport infrastructure projects are subject systematically to a
sustainability assessment while still at the planning stage

16. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen16 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
Presentation of results

17. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen17 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
An example of CBA and MCDA used by the Swiss
government
Applicability of major assessment methods
Assessment method Description Application
Comparative value analysis
(CVA)
Example of MCDA
Impacts are scores (e.g. -3 to +3).
No weighting or aggregation
Complex cases where unquantifiable
or difficult quantify values are of
importance
Utility analysis (UA)
Example of MCDA
Indicators values (impacts) are
rated on a uniform scale (e.g. 0-
100), impacts are weigthed, points
totals and weightings are combined
into a single utility value.
In complex decision-making
situations where unquantifiable or
difficult quantify values are of
importance and weighting is useful.
Cost-impact analysis (CIA)
Cost-effective analysis (CEA)
Impacts are related to costs (how
much ”impact” per monetary unit).
No aggregation, weighting or
monetarization.
All impacts can be measured. No
indification of efficiency. Applied
where monetarization of utility
components is not possible/desirable.
Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) Monetary values for target measures
fulfil the weighting function (no
weighting and determination of
utility values), different impacts can
be compared directly
(macro/microeconomic).
Not suitable as sole method for
complex multidimensional
assessment processes such as
sustainability assessmensts (rather
as supplement). Information value of
monetized values may be limited
Swiss government (2004) Sustainability assessment

18. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen18 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
RAIL BALTICA CASE STUDY

19. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen19 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
SUSTAIN Appraisal Framework (SAF)
Example of use

20. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen20 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark

21. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen21 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
Two scenarios
Business as usual Sustainable development
Improved rail lines will result in more
efficient land-bound connections
between the Baltic and the Nordic countries
(particularly Finland) and in the long run
potentially further to Central Asia.
Improved rail links will benefit the
environment, contribute to alleviate
congestion on the European road network,
increase the accessibility of the Baltic
States and potentially improve conditions
for accelerated regional development in
the countries involved. A good and cost-
effective transport system is a pre-
condition for maintaining high economic
growth and improving the European
integration. There exists a common belief
that a transition to ‘sustainable’
transport modes is possible, while at the
same time meeting the indicated stated by
transport forecasts.
The world’s natural resources are
limited, and there is a realisation that
alternative energy sources cannot replace
the fossil fuels to maintain the same
standards as we have previously known.
This means that both individual and freight
transport must be based on more
resource efficient modes. Concerning
private transportation, mobility is now more
of a luxurious good than a matter of
course. Instead planning is striving for
accessibility to the necessary facilities.
The big cities are becoming polycentric
and more medium-sized cities are
emerging. Due to the changed
transportation pattern, there is a need to
include and connect as many as possible
of these cities in the sustainable transport
corridors.

22. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen22 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
Total scores – two scenarios
0.64
0.12
0.11
0.13
0.30
0.20
0.18
0.32
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Alt. 1
Alt. 2
Alt. 3
Alt. 4
Total score
SD
BAU

23. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen23 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
Sensitivity of criteria weights
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Relativefrequency
Total score
Sustainable development
Alt. 1
Alt. 2
Alt. 3
Alt. 4

24. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen24 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
Presenting the results
• Impacts on the three dimensions of sustainability must be clearly
apparent
• Uncertainties and risks should be clearly expressed
• Qualitative information must remain recognizable and receive equal
emphasis as quantitative information
• The most important conflicting goals between individual criteria must be
apparent. An aggregate presentation cannot replace a presentation at
level of individual criteria
• Optimization opportunities should be presented and comparison of
variants should be possible
• The appropriateness of the criteria set used in relation to the project
should be critically examined

25. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen25 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
Strengths and difficulties of MCDA for
governance
Strenghts Difficulties
Learning process, stimulates
discussions, common understanding
Openness to divergent values and
opinions
Capability to tackle qualitative and
intangible factors
Accountability (sytematic, transparent)
Conflict resolution – political
compromise
Broad stakeholder participation
Helps legitimise decision makers’
behaviour
Preferences revealed in a more direct
and practical way
Technical complexity, e.g. elicitation of
parameters
Choice of stakeholders and timing of
their participation
Difficult inter-comparison of case
studies
Decisions on the degree of
simplification of the decision content
Potentially time consuming process
Experts’ reluctance to share their
knowledge/power
On a higher decision level, experts are
more suspicious of new instruments
Information bias from certain
stakeholder groups to strenghten their
power.
Gamper CD and Turcanu C (2007) On the governmental use of multi-
criteria analysis. Ecological Economics 62(2): 298-307.

26. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen26 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
An appraisal framework in progress…
• ”One goal – one instrument” is inadequate
• Well developed indicator systems to be used
• Challenges:
• Decide on a national understanding of sustainability
• Increased integration between systems and sectors
• Sustainability of transport is difficult to measure precisely due
to the interconnectedness between transport and other systems
• How to represent the future generation in evaluation?
• Which MCDA methods are most usefull?
• Research will continue to develop and apply a framework for sustainable
appraisal in the context of national transport planning

27. 28-06-2013Anders Vestergaard Jensen27 DTU Transport, Technical University of Denmark
Thank you…
www.transport.dtu.dk/sustain