Research Trends and Results
Toward Upgrading the Evaluation Method for Public Works~Dealing with the Non-monetary Effects ~OTANI Satoru, Senior Researcher
SADO Chikako, ResearcherConstruction Management Division, Research Center for Land and Construction Management( key word ) public works, evaluation of works, benefit / cost, total evaluation,
1. Introduction
In the public works, except for maintenance, repair,disaster recovery and so on, it is required that the benefit
cost ratio (B/C), which is an index to show the economic
efficiency, is greater than 1. The effects of public works
covers not only the direct effects such as the reduction ofdamage through flood prevention projects and thereduction of driving time and reduction of driving cost inroad projects, but also the activation of the district, theconservation of environment and so on. However, not allof these effects are counted as benefits. In the evaluationof public works in our country, the items out of B/C, aswell as B/C, are quantitatively or qualitatively listed up
and totally evaluated. Therefore, to upgrade theevaluation method for public works, we are researching
the project evaluation systems of other countries anddomestic cases about how to manage the efficiency
without currency conversion.
2. Evaluation of Public Works in Other Countries
In regards to evaluation of public works in othercountries where B/C is placed as an important index, inGermany and New Zealand, it is required that B/C>1 forthe adoption of projects. In UK and France, B/C is an
important evaluation element, however, B/C>1 is notnecessarily a requirement. Decisions are made toadopt the projects including these items without
estimating the benefit and evaluating the combination ofB/C and the items except B/C totally, or about how to
distribute the budget to projects.
When we compare the items of other countries withours, we find that they outnumber ours as a whole.
There are some countries that estimate the benefit of theinfluence on local economy, the effects on thepreservation of environment, and so on, which are dealt
as non-monetary items in Japan. But they are careful
about not to double count. The items calculated as
benefit vary by country and by project type.
The evaluation method of non-monetary items alsovaries. In UK the selection or the priority order of theprojects is decided in reference to the total points
calculated from B/C and other items using multi-criteria
analysis. On the other hand, in Germany, they selectprojects with B/C>1. Then, using qualitative items
concerning the national land development plan they givethe priority order to the projects. In US, some projects
concerning disaster prevention put the stress on the factthat lives and property are in danger.
Generally in other countries, considering thewide-range effects of public works, while they put thestress on economic efficiency, they build the mechanism
to take the wider effects into evaluation and pursue its
fulfillment.
3. The Opinions of Local Organizations
The opinion of some Regional Development Bureaus(RDB) that practice the projects are the consideration on
local characteristics ( ex. urban and local ) that practice
the projects, the effects on the districts, making thestandard of minimum services to give and review theunits and levels of projects evaluation. We see the same
opinions as this in the proceedings of the committees onprojects evaluation and surveillance which are establishedat every RDB.
4. Prospect
We will continue the investigation on the trend andmovements of other countries and domestic projects.
According to these results, in concern with the project
evaluation of public works, we are going to arrange thetreatment of effects with non-monetary items and thedisputed points in case it is incorporated into theevaluation method. We will proceed to investigate
about these disputed points.
(Reference)
1) Department for Communities and Local Government :Multi-criteria analysis : a manual, 2009, Department
for Transport : Transport Analysis Guidance, April
20112) Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban
Development; Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan
2003, 2003