Attitudes towards the role of Cost–Benefit Analysis in the decision-making process for spatial-infrastructure projects: A Dutch case study

This paper provides a systematic overview of the attitudes of key actors in the Dutch Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) practice towards the role of CBA in the decision-making process for spatial-infrastructure projects. The main aim of this paper is to scrutinize the extent to which there is agreement among these Dutch actors in regard to the role of the CBA in the decision-making process. A secondary goal is to provide possible explanations for agreements and controversies among key actors in the Dutch CBA practice. In this study two research methods are combined to study the key actors’ attitudes. Firstly, 86 key actors (e.g. consultants, scientists, policy makers) were interviewed in-depth. Secondly, 74 of them completed a written questionnaire. The most important conclusion of this paper is that in the Dutch CBA practice there is agreement that CBA must have a role in the appraisal process of spatial-infrastructure projects. However, there is a lot of controversy among economists and spatial planners in the Dutch CBA practice concerning the value that is and should be assigned to CBA in the decision-making process. Economists predominantly believe that not enough value is assigned to the CBA in the decision-making process, whereas spatial planners predominantly think that too much value is assigned to the CBA. Both economists and spatial planners believe that this controversy is problematic as it results in debates about the pros and cons of CBA instead of the pros and cons of the spatial-infrastructure projects. This paper analyzes some solutions for this controversy.