{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02034587995930824, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.739726027397261, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Assessing conceptions of cost-benefit analysis among road safety decision-makers: misunderstandings or disputes?

Statements about economic cost-benefit analysis were assessed in a sample of European road safety decision-makers. These statements related to both principles of cost-benefit analysis and implications for applying the method to road safety projects. A procedure of information reference testing was applied, under the assumption of identifying knowledge and possible misconceptions about the method. Homogeneity and ordinal logit analyses indicated that a high sum-score correlated with economist background, while a low sum-score correlated significantly with negative attitudes towards assessing road safety policy by cost-benefit analysis. However, the sum-score from the statements cannot be regarded as an unequivocal measure of knowledge, and the responses may indicate a boundary dispute about economics as scientific knowledge versus economics as a policy tool.