Evaluating the achievements and impacts of EC framework programme transport projects

3Citations
Citations of this article
21Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to present what kind of elements and evaluation methods should be included into a framework for evaluating the achievements and impacts of transport projects supported in EC Framework Programmes (FP). Further, the paper discusses the possibilities of such an evaluation framework in producing recommendations regarding future transport research and policy objectives as well as mutual learning for the basis of strategic long term planning. Methods: The paper describes the two-dimensional evaluation methodology developed in the course of the FP7 METRONOME project. The dimensions are: (1) achievement of project objectives and targets in different levels and (2) research project impacts according to four impact groups. The methodology uses four complementary approaches in evaluation, namely evaluation matrices, coordinator questionnaires, lead user interviews and workshops. Results: Based on the methodology testing, with a sample of FP5 and FP6 projects, the main results relating to the rationale, implementation and achievements of FP projects is presented. In general, achievement of objectives in both FPs was good. Strongest impacts were identified within the impact group of management and co-ordination. Also scientific and end-user impacts of the projects were adequate, but wider societal impacts quite modest. Conclusions: The paper concludes with a discussion both on the theoretical and practical implications of the proposed methodology and by presenting some relevant future research needs. © 2011 The Author(s).

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Tuominen, A., Järvi, T., Hyytinen, K., Mitsakis, E., Lopez-Lambas, M. E., La Paix, L., … Sitov, A. (2011). Evaluating the achievements and impacts of EC framework programme transport projects. European Transport Research Review, 3(2), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-011-0048-3

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free