Report numberRA-MOW-2009-008
TitleGuide for the socio-economic evaluation of road safety measures
AuthorsFredriek Van Malderen
Cathy Macharis
Published byPolicy Research Centre for Mobility and Public Works, track Traffic Safety 2007-2011
Number of pages84
Document languageDutch
Partner(s)Vlaamse Instelling voor Technologisch Onderzoek
Work packageOther: Evaluation techniques

This report continues on the “Guide for the socio-economic evaluation of road safety measures. A first step”. While the previous paper was mainly theoretical funded, this manual is a more practical based paper. In this paper the steps in the different socio-economic evaluation methods are discussed based on the framework of the primary paper. There is a roadmap drawn for the social cost-benefit analysis (SCBA), the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), the multi-criteria analysis (MCA) and the multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA). At the end of this paper two case studies about the SCBA and the MAMCA are carried out.

In the SCBA, eight steps can be distinguished. The preparation of the alternatives, and more specifically, the project alternatives and the zero-alternative, is the first step of the SCBA. Next, we identify the time elements of the analysis. Here we determine the discount rate and the duration of the measure. Then, there is an effect review. In this step the different effect are identified. In a next step the costs of the road safety measure are determined. These costs include the introduction costs and operational costs. Afterwards, the effects have to be quantified and monetarized. This is probably the most difficult step in the SCBA-methodology. Further, a ranking of the various steps is made and the alternatives can be compared. Therefore a net present value is calculated or a cost-benefit ratio. Finally, a sensitivity analysis is conducted to ascertain the effect of the assumptions at the final outcome.

In the cost-effectiveness analysis only één type of effect can be included. In the context of road safety only safety effects will be evaluated, not the mobility or environmental effects. As a result, this socio-economic analysis has its limitations for civil analysis. Since the CEA is derived form the SCBA, the steps are very similar to the steps of SCBA. First, the alternatives must be established. Thereafter, the effects of the measure have to be identified and quantified. An effect score card can be used for it. The difference with the SCBA is the fact that the effects should not be monetarized. This is a practical advantage of the CEA. A next step is the determination of the costs. Once the costs and effects are known, the quotient can be calculated. As a result, the cost per avoided victim is known. In this way, the various measures can be ranked. As in the SCBA a sensitivity analysis can be performed as final step.

The multi-criteria analysis is executed in 6 steps, starting from the problem analysis and the definition of the problem, which also should be done in the preceding methods. There are 4 analytical steps and 2 synthetic steps. After the problem definition, the alternatives are identified, followed by the determination of the criteria with their corresponding indicators and weights. Then, an evaluation matrix is set up. The evaluation matrix can be compared with an effect scorecard as drafted in the CEA and the SCBA. The matrix shows the effects or evaluation by alternative for each criterion. In the penultimate step and the first synthetic step; the aggregation, the overall evaluation is worked out by making a total of the relevant effects and objectives. Depending on the chosen method a ranking of the alternatives or a preferred choice is the result of the MCA. Finally, the alternative is implemented in the policy process. The MAMCA methodology is executed in a similar manner, except that there is also a stakeholder analysis at the beginning of the evaluation and a sensitivity analysis is also worked out in the MAMCA methodology. The preferred alternatives of the different stakeholders based on their different criteria are ranked and evaluated.

DownloadPDF icon RA-MOW-2009-008.pdf


The Policy Research Centre for Traffic Safety carries out policy relevant scientific research under the authority of the Flemish Government. The Centre is the result of a

cooperation between Hasselt University, KU Leuven and VITO, the Flemish Institute for Technological Research.


Leuven vito