Ray, A. 1984, Cost-benefit analysis. Issues and methodologies, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,Maryland.Sen, A., 2000, The discipline <strong>of</strong> cost-benefit analysis, Journal <strong>of</strong> Legal Studies, 29(2): 913-930.Sh<strong>of</strong>ield, J.A., 1989, Cost-benefit analysis in urban and regional planning, Allen & Unwin, London.Tevfik, F. Nas, 1996, Cost-benefit analysis: theory and application, Sage publications, Thousand Oaks, California.Willig, R.D., 1976, Consumer's Surplus without Apology, American Economic Review, American EconomicAssociation, 66(4): 589-97.World Bank, 2004, Moni<strong>to</strong>ring & Evaluation. Some <strong>to</strong>ols, methods & approaches, World Bank, Washing<strong>to</strong>n D.C.World Bank, 2005, Influential Evaluations: Detailed Case Studies, Operations Evaluation Department, World Bank,Washing<strong>to</strong>n D.C.Project evaluation and EU FundsEuropean Commission, 1997, Financial and economic analysis <strong>of</strong> development <strong>projects</strong>, Office for OfficialPublications <strong>of</strong> the European Communities, Luxembourg.European Commission, 1999, Application <strong>of</strong> the Polluter Pays Principle. Differentiating the rates <strong>of</strong> Communityassistance for Structural Fund, Cohesion Fund and ISPA infrastructure operations, The New Programmingperiod 2000-2006: technical papers by theme, Technical Paper 1.European Commission, 2005, Impact Assessment <strong>Guide</strong>lines, SEC(2005) 791, Brussels.European Commission, DG Budget, 2004, Overview <strong>of</strong> evaluation guides in the Commission,(http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/information_society/evaluation/info/lib/index_en.htm).European Commission, DG Regional Policy, 2003, EVALSED: Evaluation <strong>of</strong> socio-economic development – Theguide (http://www.evalsed.info).European Commission, DG Regional Policy, 2005, ECORYS: Ex Post evaluation <strong>of</strong> a sample <strong>of</strong> 200 <strong>projects</strong> c<strong>of</strong>inancedby the Cohesion Fund (1993-2002). Synthesis report, Rotterdam.European Commission, DG Regional Policy, 2006, Working Document 6: Measuring employment effects, Brussels.Florio, M., Vignetti, S., 2006, Cost-benefit analysis <strong>of</strong> infrastructure <strong>projects</strong> in an enlarged European Union: Returnsand Incentives, Economic change and restructuring 38:179-210.Mairate, A., Angelini, F., 2006, Cost-Benefit Analysis and EU cohesion policy, in Florio, M. (ed), 2007b.Shadow prices and key parametersBalassa, B., 1974, Estimating the shadow price <strong>of</strong> foreign exchange in project appraisal, Oxford Economic Paper,26(2): 147-148.Campbell, H. F., Brown, R.P.C., 2003, Benefit-cost analysis. Financial and economic appraisal using spreadsheets,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK).Campbell, H. F., Brown, R.P.C., 2005, A multiple account framework for cost–benefit analysis, Evaluation andProgram Planning 28: 23–32.Evans, D., Kula, E., and Sezer, H., 2005, Regional welfare weights for the UK: England, Scotland, Wales andNorthern Ireland, Regional Studies, 39(7): 923-937.Florio, M., 2005, Cost-Benefit Analysis and the European Union Cohesion Fund: On the Social Cost <strong>of</strong> Capital andLabour, Regional Studies, 40(2): 211-224.Kula, E., 2006, Social Discount Rate in Cost-Benefit Analysis – The British experience an lessons <strong>to</strong> be learned, inFlorio, M. (ed), 2007a.Office <strong>of</strong> Management and Budget, 1992, <strong>Guide</strong>lines and Discount Rates for Benefit Cost Analysis <strong>of</strong> FederalPrograms, Circular No A-94 Revised, Washing<strong>to</strong>n D.C.Spackman, M., 2006, Social discount rate for the European union. An overview in Florio, M. (ed), 2007.250
Risk analysisAsian Development Bank, 2002, Handbook <strong>of</strong> integrating risk analysis in economic analysis <strong>of</strong> project, Manila.Dixit, A.K., Pindyck, R.S., 1994, Investment under uncertainty, Prince<strong>to</strong>n University Press, New Jersey.Flyvberg, B., COWI, 2004, Procedures for Dealing with Optimism Bias in Trasport Planning, Guidance Document,UK Department for Trasport, London.Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., Rothengatter, W., 2001, Megaproject and risk. An ana<strong>to</strong>my <strong>of</strong> ambition, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge (UK).Pohl, G., Mihaljek, D., 1991, Uncertainty and the discrepancy between rate <strong>of</strong> return estimates at project appraisaland project completion, World Bank Working Paper 761, World Bank, Washing<strong>to</strong>n D.C.Pohl, G., Mihaljek, D., 1992, Project evaluation and uncertainty in practice: a statistical analysis <strong>of</strong> rate-<strong>of</strong>-returndivergences <strong>of</strong> 1,015 World Bank <strong>projects</strong>’, The World Bank Economic Review, 6(2): 255-277.Pouliquen, L.Y. 1970, Risk analysis in project appraisal, World Bank Staff occasional papers No. 11, The JohnsHopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.Reutlinger, S. 1970, Techniques for project appraisal under uncertainty, World Bank Staff occasional papers No. 10,The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.Starr, C., 2003, The precautionary principle versus risk analysis, Risk Analysis, 23(1) 1-3.3. References by sec<strong>to</strong>rTransportAdler, H.A. (1987), Economic Appraisal <strong>of</strong> Transport Projects, The World Bank Economic Development Institute,Washing<strong>to</strong>n D.C.Department <strong>of</strong> the Environment, Transport and the Region, UK, 1999, Transport and the Economy, London.European Commission, DG Europe Aid, 2006, Cost-Benefit Analysis <strong>of</strong> Transport Investment Projects, Brussels.European Commission, DG Transport and Energy, 2003, Priority <strong>projects</strong> for the Trans-European TransportNetwork Projects, Brussels.European Commission, DG Transport and Energy, 2005, Trans-European Transport Network: TEN-T priority axisand <strong>projects</strong>, Brussels.Economic Commission For Europe, United Nations, 2003, Cost Benefits Analysis <strong>of</strong> Transport InfrastructureProjects, Geneva.European Commission, European Investment Bank, 2006, Railpag-Railway project appraisal guidelines, Brussels.European Conference <strong>of</strong> Ministry <strong>of</strong> Transport, 2001, Assessing the Benefits <strong>of</strong> Transport, Paris.Flyvberg, B., 2005, Policy and Planning for Large Infrastructure Projects: Problems, Causes, Cures, World BankPolicy Research Working Paper 3781, World bank, Washing<strong>to</strong>n D.C.Harberger, A.C., 1972, Cost-benefit analysis <strong>of</strong> transportation <strong>projects</strong>, in Project evaluation: collected papers,London and Basings<strong>to</strong>ke: Macmillan, 248-79.Ministry <strong>of</strong> Transportation and Highways, Planning Services Branch, 1992, The economic appraisal <strong>of</strong> HighwayInvestment, British Columbia, Canada.OECD, 2002, Impact <strong>of</strong> Transport Infrastructure Investment on Regional Development, Paris.Quinet E.,1990, Analyse économique des transports, Presses universitaires de France, Paris.251
- 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 248 and 249: BIBLIOGRAPHY1. ReferencesBelli, P.,
- Page 252 and 253: EnvironmentGeneralAtkinson, G., 200
- Page 254 and 255: European Commission, DG Tren, 2003,