The combination of MCA and CBA has

The combination of MCA and CBA has been applied in several studies. For instance, CBA has been combined with AHP or ANP in order to cope with the CBA’s weakness in reflecting stakeholders’ knowledge in the evaluation process of projects [49]; while a financial CBA plus a MCA matrix was created for an economic evaluation of urban transformations [50].
As concerns specifically transport issues, in the EU member states (for a detailed review see [51]), different evaluation techniques are adopted with a great prevalence of CBA. In most of the cases (i.e. in Sweden, Netherlands, United Kingdom), CBA is supplemented by a specific appraisal for impacts that are difficult to be monetized; in some others (i.
e. Belgium, Austria and Greece), MCA is used, but it includes CBA as one of the criteria. Finally, in France CBA has recently been considered weak in stimulate stakeholders’ interactions, thus, in order to create a larger public debate, MCA tools have also been adopted [51]. Even at the urban scale of transport investment evaluation, as the outcome of CBA did not match with the one selected by MCA, a combination of the two methods was suggested [14].
As regards sustainable development, for instance, in the ExternE-Pol project [52] it was possibile to integrate multicriteria methodology into the wider structure of CBA by using a specific framework. By doing so, all the stakeholders’ preferences could be exploited, thus, deriving indirect monetary values for environmental goods and impacts .
Besides, as for the specific environmental impacts assessment from transportation projects, either for small - scale (lo- cal) or large-scale (regional/national), a combination of CBA and MCA has been developed in the Evaluation Framework of Environmental impacts and Costs of Transport (EFECT) [53]. EFECT is a methodological framework, which aims to cover all kinds of transport environmental initiatives, namely policies, plans and projects, by using an additive function.
Finally, as concerns the evaluation of SM at neighbourhood level, as it will be described in details in the following sections, a first attempt to use MCA has been done [54], while no specific evidence has been provided for the application of CBA. This is due to the fact that CBA well fits in the assessment of specific infrastructures or policies where monetary or monetizable costs and benefits prevail (investment, time, en- vironmental benefits, etc.) (see 3.2 for a discussion), therefore when it is applied to assess soft policies at the urban scale, it can be well supplemented by a broader evaluation approach like MCA. The MCA, indeed, effectively evaluates effects like social inclusion, change in behavior of citizens, change in the use of city, quality of life, etc.

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

The combination of MCA and CBA has been applied in several studies. For instance, CBA has been combined with AHP or ANP in order to cope with the CBA’s weakness in reflecting stakeholders’ knowledge in the evaluation process of projects [49]; while a financial CBA plus a MCA matrix was created for an economic evaluation of urban transformations [50].As concerns specifically transport issues, in the EU member states (for a detailed review see [51]), different evaluation techniques are adopted with a great prevalence of CBA. In most of the cases (i.e. in Sweden, Netherlands, United Kingdom), CBA is supplemented by a specific appraisal for impacts that are difficult to be monetized; in some others (i.e. Belgium, Austria and Greece), MCA is used, but it includes CBA as one of the criteria. Finally, in France CBA has recently been considered weak in stimulate stakeholders’ interactions, thus, in order to create a larger public debate, MCA tools have also been adopted [51]. Even at the urban scale of transport investment evaluation, as the outcome of CBA did not match with the one selected by MCA, a combination of the two methods was suggested [14].As regards sustainable development, for instance, in the ExternE-Pol project [52] it was possibile to integrate multicriteria methodology into the wider structure of CBA by using a specific framework. By doing so, all the stakeholders’ preferences could be exploited, thus, deriving indirect monetary values for environmental goods and impacts .Bên cạnh đó, đối với việc đánh giá tác động môi trường cụ thể từ các dự án giao thông vận tải, hoặc là cho nhỏ - quy mô (lo-cal) hoặc quy mô lớn (khu vực/quốc gia), một sự kết hợp của CBA và MCA đã được phát triển trong đánh giá khung của tác động môi trường và chi phí vận chuyển (EFECT) [53]. EFECT là một khuôn khổ phương, nhằm mục đích để trang trải tất cả các loại của các sáng kiến môi trường giao thông vận tải, cụ thể là chính sách, kế hoạch và dự án, bằng cách sử dụng một chức năng phụ gia.Cuối cùng, như liên quan đến việc thẩm định của SM ở cấp độ khu vực lân cận, như nó sẽ được mô tả chi tiết trong các phần sau, một nỗ lực đầu tiên sử dụng MCA đã được thực hiện [54], trong khi không có bằng chứng cụ thể đã được cung cấp cho các ứng dụng của CBA. Điều này là do thực tế là CBA cũng phù hợp trong việc đánh giá cơ sở hạ tầng cụ thể hoặc chính sách trong trường hợp tiền tệ hoặc monetizable chi phí và lợi ích ưu tiên áp dụng (đầu tư, thời gian, lợi ích en-vironmental, vv) (xem 3.2 cho một cuộc thảo luận), do đó khi nó được áp dụng để đánh giá chính sách mềm ở quy mô khu đô thị, nó có thể được cũng bổ sung bằng một phương pháp đánh giá rộng hơn như MCA. MCA, quả thật vậy, có hiệu quả đánh giá tác dụng như hòa nhập xã hội, thay đổi trong hành vi của người dân, thay đổi trong việc sử dụng của thành phố, chất lượng cuộc sống, vv.