When evaluating infrastructural projects there are various areas that always require special attention. In this article two such areas are considered: (1) the recognising of external effects (particularly where the environment is concerned); and (2) the matter of uneven cost and benefit distribution between the various parties involved. The various ways of assessing the impact of external effects are examined. The conclusion is that as soon as effects of a more localised nature are involved the assessing of external effects becomes more reliable. The problem of uneven cost and benefit distribution is examined in the light of a number of environmental hindrance compensation methods, the criteria being, for instance: justification (can the full effect be compensated?); and efficiency (can compensation lead to undesirable behaviour among victims in view of the fact that the stimulus to take preventive measures is reduced?). The conclusion concerning the latter issue is that victims prefer one-off fiscal compensation to structural fiscal compensation. (A)
Abstract