BIBLIOGRAPHY1. ReferencesBelli, P., Anderson, J. R., Barnum, H.N, Dixon, J. A., Tan, J-P, 2001, Economic Analysis <strong>of</strong> Investment Operations.Analytical Tools and Practical Applications, WBI, World Bank, Washing<strong>to</strong>n D.C.Brau, R., Florio, M., 2004, Privatisations as price reforms: Evaluating consumers' welfare changes in the UK, Annalesd’ économie et de statistique n. 75/76.De Rus, G., Nash, C.A, 2007, In what circumstances is <strong>investment</strong> in HSR worthwhile?, ITS Working paper,University <strong>of</strong> Leeds, Leeds.De Rus, G., Nombela, G., 2007, Is Investment in High Speed Rail Socially Pr<strong>of</strong>itable? Journal <strong>of</strong> TransportEconomics and Policy. January, 41, 1: 3–23.Drèze, J., Stern, N., 1987, The Theory <strong>of</strong> Cost-Benefit Analysis, in Auerbach, A., Feldstein, M. (eds), Handbook <strong>of</strong>Public Economics, vol.. 2, Amsterdam.Dupuit, J., 1844, De la mesure de l’utilité des travaux publics, Annales des Ponts et Chaussées, 2e série, Mémoires etDocuments, 116(8): 332-375.Estache, A., Serebrisky, T., 2004, Where do we stand on transport infrastructure deregulation and public-privatepartnership? in Policy Research Working Paper Series 3356, The World Bank, Washing<strong>to</strong>n D.C.European Commission, 2003, WATECO - Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive,Guidance Document No 1 ‘Economics and the Environment – The Implementation Challenge <strong>of</strong> the WaterFramework Directive’ produced by Working Group 2.6.European Commission, 2004, Green Paper on Public-Private Partnerships and Community Law on Public Contractsand Concessions, Brussels.European Commission, DG Economic and Financial Affairs, 2007, Evaluation <strong>of</strong> the performance <strong>of</strong> networkindustries providing services <strong>of</strong> general economic interest, Brussels.European Commission, DG Regional Policy, 2003: <strong>Guide</strong>lines for Successful Public – Private Partnership, Brussels.European Commission, DG Regional Policy, 2006, Methodological Working Document 4: Guidance on themethodology for carrying out cost-benefit analysis, The new programming period 2007 – 2013, Brussels.European Commission, DG Transport and Energy, 2006, EVATREN: Improved Decision-aid methods and <strong>to</strong>ols <strong>to</strong>support evaluation <strong>of</strong> <strong>investment</strong> for transport and energy networks in Europe, Brussels.European Commission, DG Transport and Energy, 2006, HEATCO: Developing Harmonised EuropeanApproaches for Transport Costing and Project Assessment, Brussels.Evans, D., 2006, Social discount rate for the European Union, in Florio, M. (ed.), 2007b.Florio, M., 2007a, Cost-Benefit Analysis and Incentives in Evaluation. The Structural Funds <strong>of</strong> the European Union,Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.Gibbons, D.C., 1986, The economic value <strong>of</strong> water, Resources for the future, Washing<strong>to</strong>n.HM Treasury, 2003, Appraisal and evaluation in Central Government. The Green Book, Treasury Guidance,London.Kindler, J., Russel, C.S., 1984, Modelling water demand, Academic Press Inc., New York.Lampietti, J.A., Benerjee, S.G., Branczik, A., 2007, People and Power, Electricity sec<strong>to</strong>r reforms and the Poor inEurope and Central Asia, World Bank Publications, Washing<strong>to</strong>n D.C.Ley, E., 2007, On the Improper use <strong>of</strong> the Internal Rate <strong>of</strong> Return in Cost-Benefit Analysis, World Bank Institute,Washing<strong>to</strong>n D.C.Miniaci, R., Scarpa, C., and Valbonesi, P., 2008, Distributional effects <strong>of</strong> price reforms in the Italian utility markets,Fiscal Studies, 29(1): 235-163.OECD, 1999, Household water pricing in OECD countries, OECD Environment programme 1999-2000, Paris.248
OECD, 2003, Social issues in the provision and pricing <strong>of</strong> water services, Paris.Pearce, D.W., Atkinson, G., Moura<strong>to</strong>, S., 2006, Cost-benefit analysis and environment: recent developments, OECD,Paris.Saerbeck R., 1990, Economic appraisal <strong>of</strong> <strong>projects</strong>. <strong>Guide</strong>lines for a simplified cost-benefit analysis, EIB Paper n.15,European Investment Bank, Luxembourg.2. Further ReadingsGeneral reference textsAsian Development Bank, 1997a, <strong>Guide</strong>lines for the Economic Analysis <strong>of</strong> Projects, Manila.Boardman, A.E., 2006, Cost-Benefit Analysis: concept and practice, 3rd edition; Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper SaddleRiver, New Jersey.Brent, R.J., 2007, Applied cost-benefit analysis, 2nd edition, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.Chervel M., 1995, L'évaluation économique des projets: Calcul économique publique et planification: les methodesd’evaluation de projets, nuova edizione, Publisud, Paris.Dinwiddy C., 1996, Teal F., Principles <strong>of</strong> cost-benefits analysis for developing countries, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge (UK).Economic Development Institute, 1996, The economic evaluation <strong>of</strong> <strong>projects</strong>, World Bank, Washing<strong>to</strong>n D.C.Estache, A., Wodon, Q. Foster, V:, 2002, Accounting for poverty in infrastructure reform: Learning from LatinAmerica’s experience, World Bank, Washing<strong>to</strong>n D.C.Gauthier, G., Thibault, M., 1993, L’analyse coûts-avantages, défis et controverses, HEC-CETAI, Economica.Gramlich, E. M., 1998, A guide <strong>to</strong> benefit-cost analysis, 2 nd edition, Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Illinois.Harberger, A.C., Jenkins, G.P., 1998, Cost-Benefit Analysis <strong>of</strong> Investment Decisions, Harvard Institute forInternational Development, Cambridge, Massachussets.Harberger, A.C., Jenkins, G.P. (eds), 2002, Cost-Benefit Analysis, International Library <strong>of</strong> Critical Writings inEconomics, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.HM Treasury, 2003, How <strong>to</strong> construct a Public Sec<strong>to</strong>r Compara<strong>to</strong>r, Technical Note 5, Private Finance Treasury TaskForce, London.HM Treasury, 2006, PPP- Value for money assessment guidance, The Stationery Office, London.Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H., 1993, Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade<strong>of</strong>fs, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge (UK).Kirkpatrick, C., Weiss, J., 1996, Cost-Benefit Analysis and Project Appraisal in Developing Countries, Edward Elgar,Cheltenham.Kirkwood, C.W., 1997, Strategic decision making: multiobjective decision analysis with spreadsheets, Duxbury Press,Belmont.Kohli, K.N., 1993, Economic analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>investment</strong> <strong>projects</strong>: A practical approach, Oxford University Press for theAsian Development Bank, Oxford.Layard R., Glaister S. (eds), 1994, Cost Benefit Analysis, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK).Little I.M.D., Mirrlees J.A., 1990, ‘The costs and benefits <strong>of</strong> analysis’, in Layard R. and Glaister S. ,1994, Cost BenefitAnalysis. Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK).Little, I.M.D., Mirrlees, J.A., 1974, Project appraisal and planning for developing countries, Heinemann EducationalBooks, London.Lundolm, M., 2005, Cost-benefit analysis and the marginal cost <strong>of</strong> public funds, S<strong>to</strong>ckholm University, S<strong>to</strong>ckholm.Mishan, E.J., Quah, E., 2007, Cost Benefit Analysis, 5th edition, Routledge, New York.Potts, D., 2002, Project planning and analysis for development, Lynne Rienner Publishers, London.249
- Page 3:
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSBAUB/CCBA
- Page 7 and 8:
TABLESTable 2.1 Financial analysis
- Page 9:
FIGURESFigure 1.1 Project cost spre
- Page 12 and 13:
Cohesion Fund, and through the leve
- Page 14 and 15:
or the plant will not reveal excess
- Page 17 and 18:
CHAPTER ONEPROJECT APPRAISAL IN THE
- Page 19 and 20:
Some specifications for financial t
- Page 21 and 22:
FOCUS: INFORMATION REQUIREDGeneral
- Page 23 and 24:
In particular, CBA results should p
- Page 25 and 26:
CHAPTER TWOAN AGENDA FOR THE PROJEC
- Page 27 and 28:
objectives, are, as far as possible
- Page 29 and 30:
considered the appropriate shadow p
- Page 31 and 32:
2.3.2 Feasibility analysisFeasibili
- Page 34 and 35:
This approach will be presented in
- Page 36 and 37:
Current assets include:- receivable
- Page 38 and 39:
The following items are usually not
- Page 40 and 41:
Mainly, the examiner uses the FRR(C
- Page 42 and 43:
The dynamics of the incoming flows
- Page 44 and 45:
eturn on their own capital (Kp). Th
- Page 46 and 47:
While the approach presented in thi
- Page 48 and 49:
2.5.1 Conversion of market to accou
- Page 50 and 51:
Table 2.9 Electricity price dispers
- Page 52 and 53:
2.5.1.2 Fiscal correctionsSome item
- Page 54 and 55:
previously estimated in projects wi
- Page 56 and 57:
FOCUS: ENPV VS. FNPVThe difference
- Page 58 and 59:
2.6 Risk assessmentProject appraisa
- Page 60 and 61:
Table 2.14 Impact analysis of criti
- Page 62 and 63:
Figure 2.6 Probability distribution
- Page 64 and 65:
eneficiary. The project proposer sh
- Page 66 and 67:
There are many ways to design an MC
- Page 68 and 69:
PROJECT APPRAISAL CHECK-LISTCONTEXT
- Page 70 and 71:
- reduction of congestion by elimin
- Page 72 and 73:
- the methods applied to estimate e
- Page 74 and 75:
- the marginal external costs: cong
- Page 76 and 77:
- the benefits for the existing tra
- Page 78 and 79:
The following tables show some refe
- Page 80 and 81:
3.1.1.6 Risk assessmentDue to their
- Page 82 and 83:
As shown in Figure 3.1, only under
- Page 84 and 85:
3.1.3.7 Other project evaluation ap
- Page 87 and 88:
- Waste Management Hierarchy rules
- Page 89 and 90:
The time horizon for a project anal
- Page 91 and 92:
3.2.1.7 Other project evaluation ap
- Page 93 and 94:
every user support the total costs
- Page 95 and 96:
Territorial reference frameworkIf t
- Page 97 and 98:
Cycle and phases of the projectGrea
- Page 99 and 100:
One of the most important aims of t
- Page 101 and 102:
projects, as in other sectors in wh
- Page 103 and 104:
3.2.3.2 Project identificationBasic
- Page 105 and 106:
3.2.3.7 Other project evaluation ap
- Page 107 and 108:
In order to evaluate the overall im
- Page 109 and 110:
for regassification plants, number
- Page 111 and 112:
Examples of objectives are:- change
- Page 113 and 114:
decontamination if any;- the techni
- Page 115 and 116:
3.3.3.6 Risk AnalysisCritical facto
- Page 117 and 118:
3.3.4.6 Risk assessmentCritical fac
- Page 119 and 120:
3.4.1.5 Economic analysisThe follow
- Page 121 and 122:
Financial inflows• Admission fees
- Page 123 and 124:
expectancy suitably adjusted by the
- Page 125 and 126:
The time horizon for project analys
- Page 127 and 128:
A Cost-Benefit Analysis should cons
- Page 129 and 130:
CHAPTER FOURCASE STUDIESOverviewThi
- Page 131 and 132:
- finally, there is the traffic tha
- Page 134 and 135:
c) Road users producer’s surplus:
- Page 136 and 137:
4.1.5 Scenario analysisTwo scenario
- Page 138 and 139:
The financial performance indicator
- Page 140 and 141:
Table 4.10 Economic analysis (Milli
- Page 142 and 143:
Table 4.12 Financial return on capi
- Page 144 and 145:
4.2 Case Study: investment in a rai
- Page 146 and 147:
4.2.4 Economic analysisThe benefits
- Page 148 and 149:
Financial investment costs have bee
- Page 150 and 151:
Figure 4.6 Results of the risk anal
- Page 152 and 153:
Table 4.22 Economic analysis (Milli
- Page 154 and 155:
Table 4.24 Financial return on capi
- Page 156 and 157:
4.3 Case Study: investment in an in
- Page 158 and 159:
ate of 0.6% per year is assumed for
- Page 160 and 161:
The shadow price of the CO 2 avoide
- Page 162 and 163:
As a result, the probability distri
- Page 164 and 165:
Table 4.36 Financial return on capi
- Page 166 and 167:
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
- Page 168 and 169:
4.4 Case Study: investment in a was
- Page 170 and 171:
4.4.2 Financial analysisAlthough in
- Page 172 and 173:
THE CALCULATION OF REVENUESReferrin
- Page 174 and 175:
0.15 m 3 /m 2 a depreciation of 20%
- Page 176 and 177:
As result, the probability distribu
- Page 178 and 179:
Figure 4.13 Probability distributio
- Page 180 and 181:
Table 4.48 Financial return on nati
- Page 182 and 183:
Table 4.50 Financial return on priv
- Page 184 and 185:
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
- Page 186 and 187:
4.5 Case Study: industrial investme
- Page 188 and 189:
4.5.4.1 Investment costsThe total i
- Page 190 and 191:
Finally, a residual value was estim
- Page 192 and 193:
This analysis shows the need to pay
- Page 194 and 195:
Table 4.62 Financial return on inve
- Page 196 and 197:
Table 4.64 Return on private equity
- Page 198 and 199: Table 4.66 Economic analysis (thous
- Page 200 and 201: ANNEX ADEMAND ANALYSISDemand foreca
- Page 202 and 203: The method applied for the forecast
- Page 204 and 205: Furthermore, travel demand depends
- Page 206 and 207: This Guide supports a unique refere
- Page 208 and 209: A higher discount rate for countrie
- Page 210 and 211: Figure C.1 Project ranking by NPV v
- Page 212 and 213: The main problems with this indicat
- Page 214 and 215: EXAMPLE OF SHADOW WAGE IN DUAL MARK
- Page 216 and 217: Another exhaustive way to include d
- Page 218 and 219: Figure E.2 Percentage of low income
- Page 220 and 221: ANNEX FEVALUATION OF HEALTH &ENVIRO
- Page 222 and 223: Figure F.1 Main evaluation methodsS
- Page 224 and 225: - expenditure on capital equipment
- Page 226 and 227: due to air pollution or water conta
- Page 228 and 229: BENEFIT TRANSFER - SELECTED REFEREN
- Page 230 and 231: ANNEX GEVALUATION OF PPP PROJECTSIt
- Page 232 and 233: adjustments for Competitive Neutral
- Page 234 and 235: ANNEX HRISK ASSESSMENTIn ex-ante pr
- Page 236 and 237: Reference ForecastingThe question o
- Page 238 and 239: Figure H.5 Levels of risks in diffe
- Page 240 and 241: ANNEX IDETERMINATION OF THE EU GRAN
- Page 242 and 243: A.4. Technological Alternatives and
- Page 244 and 245: GLOSSARYAccounting period: the inte
- Page 246 and 247: Market price: the price at which a
- Page 250 and 251: Ray, A. 1984, Cost-benefit analysis
- Page 252 and 253: EnvironmentGeneralAtkinson, G., 200
- Page 254 and 255: European Commission, DG Tren, 2003,