A Compensation Strategy for the Negative Impacts of Infrastructure Facilities on Land Use

Abstract

Infrastructure facility development and modernization highly contribute to national economic growth, but at the same time, such development also causes local negative impacts on the use of specific land plots, creating losses for their right holders. In Russia, some prerequisites have already been laid down on the issue of compensation for the losses associated with restrictions on the rights and prohibitions of economic activity within zones with special territory use conditions (ZSTUCs). However, the impacts of such facilities lead to environmental pollution and land use disadvantages, such as irregular parcels. The aim of this work is to substantiate a set of approaches to compensating for the cumulative negative impact of infrastructure facilities. The factors causing the negative impacts of infrastructure facilities are grouped into three areas: rights restrictions, territorial deficiencies and environmental pollution. This work uses the SWOT analysis method with the possibility of element-by-element analysis, as a result of which the approaches to the compensation for negative impacts under different external and internal conditions are determined. As a result of this study, a justification for a set of approaches to compensating for the negative impacts of infrastructure facilities on land use was executed, and a new algorithm to compensate the right holders of the land, industry sector or state for such negative impacts was developed. The following approaches to compensating for negative impacts were identified: loss assessment; the establishment of environmental payments; cadastral value adjustment; compensation for industry sector losses; and the use of state regulation tools. The first two approaches were identified as the main ones. The proposed algorithm can be realized only with the help of the abovementioned methodological approaches, which form a basis for further research.

1. Introduction

Land is the basis for industrial activity and at the same time the main tool of production; as such, rational land use should ensure its maximum involvement in the economic cycle and the effective use of all lands for their intended purpose, creating conditions for the high productivity of agricultural territories at the lowest cost. The efficiency of land use and the human environment as a whole is influenced by infrastructure objects in a multifactorial way. Under the conditions of scientific and technological progress and the spatial division of labor, infrastructure in general is a communication channel for the movement and transfer of products, energy and information. Therefore, the problem of ensuring normal living conditions for the population of the country is essentially reduced to the provision of the territory with this infrastructure.

The Urban Planning Code of the Russian Federation divides infrastructure into three groups: engineering, transport and social. Engineering infrastructure facilities include technologically interconnected facilities and engineering structures designed to supply goods and services in the areas of electricity, gas, heat, water supply and the water disposal of capital construction projects (i.e., pipeline transport, energy, water supply and communication facilities), as well as facilities used for the treatment, disposal, neutralization and burial of solid municipal waste. Transport infrastructure facilities include road sections, buildings and structures of road, off-street, railway, water and air transport that ensure the management and functioning of the transport complex. The objects of social infrastructure include institutions of education, health care, culture, sports, trade, consumer services, etc.

Thus, the concept of infrastructure objects is broad and includes a set of objects, systems and services necessary to ensure the functioning of society. Specifically, engineering infrastructure facilities ensure the viability of capital construction objects and the possibility of their use for their intended purpose. The negative impacts of transportation and engineering infrastructure facilities on land use are similar; therefore, in this study, infrastructure facilities are understood as a set of engineering and transportation infrastructure, excluding social infrastructure.

The development and modernization of infrastructure facilities contribute to the improvement in the country’s economic well-being, but at the same time, such development also causes local negative impacts on the use of specific land plots, creating losses for right holders. These negative impacts include damage to the land, which manifests itself in the form of the deterioration in land characteristics, such as restrictions on rights and economic activity, the increased fragmentation of the territory by linear objects and their ZSTUCs, soil disturbance and pollution, the pollution of the atmosphere and groundwater, the violation of aesthetics and landscape, etc. These can lead to the loss of land use and the emergence of land right holder losses. Thus, the concept of land use loss comprises qualitative and quantitative characteristics, which leads to difficulties in or the impossibility of using the land for its intended purpose [1]. Basically, scientists propose compensating for the negative impacts of infrastructure facilities either through land taxation, i.e., by improving the methods of determining the cadastral value of land, or through the calculation of compensations for restrictions on rights and created inconveniences (payment for easement) based on an assessment of the encumbered land. In recent years, scientists have been actively trying to solve the problems of the negative impacts of infrastructure facilities on land use, including proposing the use of alternative, more environmentally friendly energy sources [2,3].

In a number of countries, including Russia, large-scale works on electrification and the construction of gas and water pipelines were carried out before the establishment of land ownership, so the location of their networks did not take into account the needs of land owners and did not require coordination with the population, despite the damage caused [4]. The need to ensure access to water, gas and electricity exceeded the inconvenience created by communications, up to the illegality of these actions. Currently, the rights of land owners are sufficiently protected, which contributes to the development of public discontent related to the lack of compensation for losses.

Restrictions or the complete prohibitions on certain activities, territorial deficiencies, environmental pollution within the zones of influence of infrastructure facilities and the resulting losses make it impossible to adhere to the principle of maximum land use efficiency, which stipulates that all land plots must be accounted for and their useful properties and qualitative characteristics fully utilized.

Many countries provide compensation to right holders for losses caused by restrictions on their rights in connection with the establishment of or change in zones with special territory use conditions. However, the lack of methodological support for assessing these restrictions prevents proper compliance with adopted legal norms [5,6]. Ambiguous judicial practice regarding compensation for losses from the negative impacts of infrastructure facilities confirms the relevance of this issue.

Furthermore, current legislation and practice do not provide measures to compensate for losses associated with territorial deficiencies and environmental pollution arising from the operation of infrastructure facilities. In this regard, the objective of this study is to propose and justify a set of approaches to compensating for the cumulative negative impacts of infrastructure facilities on land use.

The structure of this work includes the following main parts: a review of the positive impacts of infrastructure facilities on land use; a review of the negative impacts of infrastructure facilities on land use; a summary of scientific achievements in assessing encumbered land and compensating for losses from the negative impacts of infrastructure facilities on land use; a description of the research methods; the justification of a set of approaches to compensating for the negative impacts of infrastructure facilities; the development of an algorithm for compensating for the negative impacts of infrastructure facilities on land use; and conclusions on the research topic.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Positive Impacts of Infrastructure Facilities on Land Use

Engineering communications and transport are an integral part of infrastructure, without which it is impossible to ensure comfortable living conditions. Annual programs for the development of gasification, electrification, communication networks, and water and wastewater systems in rural areas contribute to higher living standards and economic development and enhance the investment attractiveness of these settlements [7].

In this study, the positive impacts of infrastructure facilities on land use are treated as axiomatic and do not require empirical proof. The studies of most world authors on urban planning, land management and cadastral valuation methodology are not aimed at proving the positive impacts of infrastructure provision but at determining the significance of this factor.

Khalid Sh. and Zameer F. [8], Thiwanka A.M.D. and Wickramaarachchi N.Ch. [9] have assessed the significance of infrastructure factors for land. In their cadastral valuation of lands in the ‘residential homestead zone’ (including gardening associations, cottage cooperatives and rural settlements), Dedkova O. and Arabina A. [10] noted the significant influence of the presence of engineering networks or the possibility of connecting to them on land value. For non-agricultural land, the importance of transport infrastructure was noted by Babajanov A. et al. [11]. Baumane V. and A. Celms [12], who used expert methods to assess cadastral value factors and also found high significance for the presence of engineering infrastructure on land intended for development. Kovyazin V.F. and Bogdanova L. [13] and Nguen A. et al. [14]. consider the degree of engineering and transport infrastructure development as a factor that increases the cadastral value of forest land (coefficient of infrastructure development). Akudeka E. et al. [15] also assessed the significance of transport and engineering infrastructure accessibility in determining the cadastral value of land. The relationship between transport infrastructure development and land value appreciation in Vietnam was studied by Tuan N.T. and Lan N.T. [16]. Baltyzhakova T.I. [17], using principal component analysis to identify hidden factors in the cadastral valuation of settlement lands, found that provision with centralized engineering systems is one of the most significant factors. A significant influence of developed transport and engineering infrastructure on the value of agricultural land was also noted by Chaudhary D. et al. [18].

The market’s recognition of this factor’s importance is reflected in the increased cost of real estate in areas with developed infrastructure. This factor is, therefore, incorporated into methodological recommendations for cadastral valuation. The positive impact of infrastructure provision is considered in the analyzed Reports on the Determination of Cadastral Value of Land Plots in St. Petersburg for 2018 and 2022 and is factored into the cadastral valuation of these land plots.

2.2. Negative Impacts of Infrastructure Facilities on Land Use

On the other hand, the operation and development of infrastructure facilities do not always contribute to rational land use planning, leading to territorial deficiencies, legal restrictions and the creation of disturbed and polluted land. The negative impacts of infrastructure facilities on land use, unlike the positive ones, are not as obvious and clear, and therefore require more detailed study and analysis.

2.2.1. Rights Restrictions

One of the factors of the negative impacts of infrastructure facilities on land use is the restriction and/or prohibition of certain economic activities within the boundaries of a ZSTUC, established for infrastructure facilities in accordance with the Land Law of the Russian Federation. An analysis of regulations establishing the parameters of ZSTUCs and their use regimes shows that different types of infrastructure facilities require the establishment of ZSTUCs for different purposes. These may include sanitary protection zones (SPZs), security zones (SZs) and sanitary security zones (SSZs), among others [19]. Often, the establishment of a ZSTUC serves multiple purposes. For example, the protection zone of trunk pipelines (gas, oil, oil product and ammonia pipelines) is established both to ensure the safe operation of the facilities and protect the life and health of citizens. Depending on the type of infrastructure facilities, economic activities may be restricted or prohibited within ZSTUC boundaries, such as capital construction, the planting and cutting of trees, the tilling of land and the storage or transit of motor vehicles. These restrictions on rights result in the inability to use the encumbered land in the most efficient manner and cause losses for right holders in the form of lost profits or increased land cultivation costs. In contrast to the ZSTUCs established under Russian land legislation, the most common form of rights restriction internationally is represented by the easements. However, countries such as Poland, Canada, Belarus, etc., have not developed standardized regulations for zones of restricted economic activity (easement boundaries) [20].

In international practice, the concept of public law restrictions also exists. There are usually registered in separate registers and include, among other things, restrictions related to environment and nature protection, water resource protection, spatial planning and land use zones, cultural heritage, public infrastructure corridors and zones, public easements and mining rights [21]. Kitsakisa D. et al. [22] proposed the creation of a 3D model of public law restrictions that would consider not only explicit and implicit restrictions on economic activities (e.g., limitations on building height and tree planting) but also qualitative characteristics such as noise, soil, groundwater pollution, etc. Studies on compensating for damages related to the introduction of a restricted land use zone around a passenger airport and the negative impact of noise were carried out by Foryś I. et al. [23].

In the USA, the mechanism of establishing conservation easements to restrain urban growth and protect the environment is widespread. In this context, the issue of assessing rights limitations within easement boundaries is critical [24]. Mashour T. et al. [25] evaluated the effects of various natural characteristics, legal constraints and parcel counts in rural areas on the value of conservation easements using data from negotiated transactions in Florida. The results of the hedonic analysis showed that the further the distance from cities with a population of 100,000 or more, the lower the conservation easement price, whereas in high-elevation forests, wetland clearcutting waivers and subdivision waivers increase easement prices.

2.2.2. Territorial Deficiencies

The construction of engineering and transport structures and the establishment of their ZSTUCs give rise to territorial land use deficiencies, such as irregular boundaries, narrow parcels, enclaves and interspersed parcels. These deficiencies significantly affect the productivity and economic feasibility of agricultural land use. They create additional costs for cultivating such lands and require additional financial investments for restoring land productivity. Consequently, some agricultural lands are partially or completely taken out of use due to the complexity and unprofitability of their cultivation.

Legislation stipulates that ‘the formation of land plots should not lead to wedging, inclusion, broken boundaries, interspersion, inability to site real estate objects, and other deficiencies hindering the rational use and protection of lands’. However, this requirement is often not observed when planning the construction of engineering and transport facilities and establishing their ZSTUCs. As a result of the routing of linear infrastructure facilities through or near land plots, parts of land that are not encumbered by the ZSTUC—and could otherwise be used efficiently—are formed with irregular shapes, indented boundaries or other territorial deficiencies, making them unprofitable for their intended purpose. Similar requirements for land plot formation exist in other countries. For example, Latvian land legislation provides for designing compact land plots (with the smallest perimeter), eliminating interspersion, forming land plot boundaries as broken lines with rotation angles close to 90° and forming boundaries that account for the characteristics of permanent natural features of the terrain. Giluca A. et al. [26] engaged in determining the weighting coefficients for these requirements using the analytic hierarchy process to evaluate land survey project options.

Pasko O.A. and Zakharchenko A.V. [27] and Korneeva A.V. [28] analyzed such territorial characteristics of agricultural land plots as the compactness coefficient, distance coefficient, boundary straightness coefficient and spatial remoteness coefficient. The work by Kolmykov A.V. and Gubsky G.A. [29] is devoted to the study and comparison of methods for assessing the compactness of the territory of rural settlements in the Republic of Belarus.

Bogdan B. and Barańska A. [6] investigated the influence of easement on adjacent properties to calculate compensation. The authors focused not only on rights restrictions but also on the occurrence of territorial deficiencies, dividing the encumbrance zone into several zones of influence: the occupation zone—the horizontal projection of the structure; the technological (operational) strip—the zone actively used by the company; the zone of influence (passive zone)—the result of restrictions caused by the objects; and the zone of legal consequences—arising from zoning documentation and administrative decisions. Thus, the impacts of infrastructure facilities often extend beyond the boundaries of the land plot where the facility is located, leading to significant restrictions on property rights and the creation of territorial deficiencies for which, in the absence of an easement, the right holder is adequately compensated. This problem is raised by Butryn K. and Preweda E. [30], who distinguish two variants of negative impacts. The first is when the infrastructure is located on a nearby territory and its impacts extend to a neighboring property. The second is when the location of the engineering infrastructure creates an indirect burden on the neighboring property, such as the need to provide access to a public road. The compensated easement zone is typically limited to the narrow service corridor required for the utilities, which is insufficient for accommodating heavy machinery and necessary equipment during repair work. In this regard, the authors propose to increase the compensated easement zone in accordance with the parameters of the protection zone established by territorial planning projects.

2.2.3. Environmental Pollution

Urban engineering and transport infrastructure facilities cause significant damage to the environment, which is confirmed by many studies. The works by Italian scientists Gianquintieri L. et al. [31] and Iranian scientists Ebrahimi A.A. et al. [32] are devoted to atmospheric pollution levels in urbanized areas and health risk assessment. During the construction and operation of infrastructure facilities, the quality of land resources is reduced, primarily due to the mechanical disturbance of the soil structure and the creation of an anthropogenic landscape. In addition, situations that lead to environmental pollution arise: soil contamination [33,34], damage to vegetation cover, gas leaks [35] and oil spills [36,37,38], the influence of electromagnetic radiation from power lines and communication networks [5,39], noise and dust pollution [40,41], various emissions from infrastructure facilities, etc. Since contaminated soils contribute to the accumulation of potentially toxic metals in agricultural crops and other food and water sources, leading to serious consequences for human health, the environment and ecosystem sustainability, many authors study the impact of increased anthropogenic loads on the concentration of heavy metals (Pb, Zn, Hg and Cu) in soils [42]. For example, Aleksashkin I.V. and Dubas V.V. [43] analyzed methods for detoxifying heavy metals in soils, Sarapulova G.I. [44] studied the impact of anthropogenic objects on soils, and Kamanina I.Z. et al. [45] and others engaged in assessing soil contamination with potentially toxic metals. Many foreign scientists have also paid attention to soil contamination by heavy metals [32,46]. It should be noted that in the continuous process of pollution, the soil loses its productivity and biological self-purification capacity, which leads to the violation of its ecological functions and the need for reclamation and remediation work [47].

The negative impacts of road surface conditions on the environment were evaluated by Seknun H. et al. [48]. Skachkova M.E. and Gurieva O. [49] are engaged in developing indicators to assess the qualitative and quantitative aspects of green spaces to determine the urban environment quality index for St. Petersburg. The negative impacts of engineering infrastructure facilities on the quality of agricultural land during temporary occupation were studied by Grčman H. and Zupanc V. [50]. Petrov M.A. et al. [51] suggest using an index method for assessing the ecological state of land under anthropogenic impacts, allowing a system of indicators that reflect both positive and negative environmental aspects to be combined into a single relative indicator.

Wadleya D.A. et al. [52] identified the main hazards associated with power lines: electromagnetic fields, visual impacts and noise, safety problems and accidents, environmental impact and encroachment on property. Similar dangers were noted by Harleman N. [39], who studied the problem of widespread resident opposition to the expansion of the power line network in the United States. This resistance is due to the fact that most right holders of affected properties are adjacent to but not directly crossed by power lines and thus do not receive compensation from the supplying organizations. Shim D. et al. [53] also assessed the level of concern among the South Korean population about perceived health risks and property loss from high-voltage transmission lines and their willingness to pay for the transition from overhead lines to underground cables.

2.3. Scientific Advances on Assessment of Encumbered Land and Compensation for Losses from Negative Impacts of Infrastructure on Land Use

According to the Russian legislation, there are two types of compensation for losses arising from the establishment or modification of a ZSTUC: compensation through the buyout of the property or its capital construction facilities, and compensation for losses. If both methods are available, the right holder may choose only one. A buyout may occur only if the establishment or amendment of the ZSTUC renders the land plot and the facility located thereon completely unusable. Losses, including loss of profit, must be compensated in full. The amount of losses may include a decrease in the property’s market value, costs associated with the demolishing capital construction facilities or bringing their parameters (permitted use) into compliance with ZSTUC restrictions, and losses from the cancellation of contracts related to the immovable property or the impossibility of fulfilling obligations to third parties. Similar measures are used in other countries. In Poland, the compensation amount is also calculated taking into account actual damages (the condition of the object before and after the works), loss of profit and the reduction in the value of the encumbered property [54,55].

However, an analysis of judicial practice in Russia by Chmykhalo E.Y. [56] shows that if a land plot can still be used in any way within its permitted use after the establishment of a ZSTUC, courts often conclude that the right is not violated and that losses are not compensable. Courts also refuse to satisfy claims for compensation due to a lack of evidence that the purchase price did not account for the difference between the market value with and without the rights restrictions. Similarly, claims are denied for lack of evidence of costs incurred to restore the violated right (actual damages), lost profits that would have been received under normal civil turnover and the amount of losses. In some cases, claims for damages were denied when the court determined that errors in the initial parcel formation were the cause, for example, when the exact distance from an underground gas pipeline was not determined, placing part of the plot within the pipeline’s protection zone [56]. According to Foryś I. at al [23], the lack of approved methodologies for calculating damage compensation and the adjudicative nature of this compensation contribute to the inefficiency of the existing mechanism for compensating losses from infrastructure facilities.

Due to the lack of published information or validated methods for accounting for restrictions from the ‘Presence of encumbrances (restrictions) associated with utility protection zones’, the St. Petersburg ‘City Department of Cadastral Valuation’ conducted a special study using the method proposed by Senkovskaya K.E. [57]. This involved an expert survey of specialists in the assessment or management of encumbered land. The study determined reduction coefficients for cadastral value related to the share of the plot area occupied by engineering communication protection zones. It should be noted that one of the seven experts considered it incorrect to use fixed coefficient values, noting that the significance of a land plot’s encumbrances is determined by a set of factors—such as type of use, utility purpose, existing development, and utility location—which results in a very wide variation in the discount value depending on the overlap of these factors and makes it possible to account for land plot encumbrances only through an individual assessment.

Many scientists state that a differentiated approach is necessary, depending on the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the land plot and its encumbrances [58,59,60]. The disadvantages of the methodology based on the Assessment Reports include the small number of experts, the subjectivity of their decisions and a lack of differentiation between the impacts of various utilities on different types of land use. Only the total area of encumbrances within the plot boundaries was assessed. Thus, the consideration of the ZSTUC impact factor on land value is largely a formality. Skatov M.A. [59] reached similar conclusions after analyzing the Reports on Cadastral Valuation of Land Plots in the Moscow region.

Russian authors mainly propose to solve the problem of compensation for the negative impacts of infrastructure by improving the methodology for the cadastral valuation of encumbered land. For instance, Sutyagin V.Yu. [61], Kretinin K.V. [62] and Varlamov A.A. and Galchenko S.A. [63] have developed methods for accounting for rights restrictions on land encumbered by facilities that create special use regimes by adjusting the cadastral value. The first author proposed a methodology for introducing a cadastral value adjustment coefficient based on the degree of rights restriction, from 0 (if the ZSTUC does not affect land use) to 1 (if the ZSTUC completely prevents land use). The coefficient is calculated by analyzing regulations and identifying restrictions that have a negative impact, based on the most efficient use of land. The second author’s proposal is to increase the cadastral value by the amount of compensation for damage caused by the placing an overhead power line support on an agricultural crop. The damage is calculated as the sum of additional agrotechnical costs, the cost of lost yield and additional weed control costs. The third authors’ research focuses on redistributing tax burdens by applying surcharge and discount coefficients to the cadastral value of lands with regime-forming facilities and encumbered lands, respectively. The need to consider legal factors such as cadastral registration, development potential, and the presence of restrictions in cadastral valuation is also highlighted by Alkan T. and Durduran SS. [64]. It is important to note that improving the cadastral valuation methodology is currently impossible without using modern methods, as discussed in the works by Renigier-Biłozor M. et al. [65] and Pagourtzi E. et al. [66]. More researchers propose to account for various environmental pollution factors in cadastral valuation, which lead to additional reclamation and fertility restoration costs for right holders of land plots in the infrastructure influence zone. Makarov O.A. et al. [45,67] note that the anthropogenic transformation of soil properties should be considered in the cadastral assessment of land to create an adequate system of environmental payments.

Slovenian scientists Grčman H. and Zupanc V. [50] also drew attention to the need for a methodology to assess compensation for the deterioration in the morphological, physical and chemical properties of soil (in cases of temporary occupation of agricultural land), considering the land’s actual state and the restoration period. The works by Melnichuk A.Y. and Antonenko E.V. [68,69] address the impact of highway pollution on cadastral land value. Novikova T. et al. [70] are engaged in ecological assessment for cadastral valuation purposes, constructing a territorial zoning map of urban areas by air pollution based on an integral assessment method. Popov V.K. and Kozina M.V. [71] also highlight the problem of inadequate consideration of the environmental component in cadastral land assessment. The determination of the influence of environmental factors and soil fertility on the cadastral value of land plots was carried out by Banikiewicz T. et al. [60]. The influence of dumps, industrial facilities and other unattractive objects on cadastral valuation was considered by Raguzin I.G. and Baltyzhakova T.I. [72]. It should be noted that assessing soil quality is important not only for developing a system of compensatory payments but also for making territorial planning decisions (the placement of industrial, cultural and other facilities) and, accordingly, for ensuring rational land use [47].

Since the location of infrastructure facilities in many foreign countries implies the establishment of a compensated easement, foreign authors often attempt to estimate the value of the encumbered part of the land plot and the amount of compensation. The active land market in the USA allowed Sherwood D. [73,74] to determine the easement’s value share as a percentage of the land plot’s value by the type of encumbrance and the degree of impact, using the paired sales analysis method. However, this method is not applicable in most countries due to insufficient market data on properties with encumbrances. In Slovenia, for example, the assessment of reduced market value of land and compensation for easements is based on an empirical method. The informal and unsubstantiated ‘30% rule’ is often applied to reduce land value, either for the whole plot or the part under the easement. Therefore, Stopar I. and Kovač M.Š. [75] used expert valuation methods to calculate the reduction in the value of encumbered land based on a survey of potential land buyers. The valuation considered various factors: type of easement, area, degree of easement, and location of the encumbered part of the plot. The authors divide easements by their degree of disturbance; the ‘right of way’ is classified as an extremely disturbing type, while water mains are classified as less disturbing (in the case of underground easements with nominal and insignificant crossing). Similar results were obtained by Sherwood D. [73,74]. Stopar I. and Kovač M.Š. [75] also attempted to calculate monthly compensation based on a survey, but the high variability of the results rendered the outcomes unusable. Stringent requirements for selecting comparable properties are also a drawback of the methodology developed by Skatov. M.A. [59], who proposed adjusting the cost of land encumbered by ZSTUCs by integrating comparative and income approaches. The application of the ‘before and after’ methodology, discussed by Šnajberg O. [76], assesses the easement’s value as the difference between the land plot’s value before and after the easement’s establishment. In this method, the easement’s value is measured as the loss in value to the encumbered property, not the gain in value to the grantee. Marabaoğlu S. and Uzun B. [5] used the analytic hierarchy process to estimate the value of a high-voltage transmission line easement based on four main criteria: the area of the easement and the land plot, the development rights of the land plot, the spatial location of the transmission line within the plot and the distance from a residential house. The idea of reducing the environmental impact of the electromagnetic field is embedded in the consideration of the distance from the residential building. Due to the lack of a unified methodology, the study developed the ‘High-Voltage Transmission Line (HVTL) Impact Value Model’ software application to determine easement prices as accurately and automatically as possible.

The introduction of tax exemptions and subsidies for encumbered lands, compensation payments to commodity producers (based on the impact of different zones on gross agricultural output) and increased payments for land with regime-forming facilities was proposed by Antropov. D.V. [58]. However, this methodology, like that by Kretinin K.V. [61], is applicable only to agricultural land. Sheng T.K. and Kasim R. [77] studied the assessment of temporary construction easement. According to them, a permanent utility easement can be valued using a method based on the difference between the entire property’s value before and after the encumbrance.

A study by Tachovsky M. and Bell G.R. [1] proposed approaches to valuing real estate with adverse conditions (natural, environmental, external, social, etc.), including easements and external factors like power lines, noise, odor and adverse neighborhoods. The idea is to consider three stages in the life cycle of adverse conditions: ‘assessment’ (pre-remediation), ‘repair’ (during remediation) and ‘ongoing’ (post-remediation). This considers factors of cost (remediation and restoration costs), use (the ability to use the facility for its intended purpose) and risk (the market’s reaction to information about the adverse condition and uncertainty).

Regarding high-voltage transmission lines, it is important to note the study by Rambonilaza T. et al. [78] on the impact of environmental factors of overhead lines and towers on property values. The main negative factors identified were visual obstacles, human perceptions of the loss of ecological and aesthetic landscape values and concerns about health risks from electromagnetic field exposure. The study was based on a quasi-natural experiment evaluating the market reaction to an announcement about replacing overhead power lines with underground ones. The results show that the announcement resulted in a price increase of about 40% for houses located within 200 m of the existing poles.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Selection of Literature Sources

This study was based on the analysis and synthesis of regulatory and legal documents, the Reports on the Cadastral Valuation of Land Plots in St. Petersburg and the scientific literature (articles and conference proceedings) identified using bibliographic search tools (search by keywords, title and references). To achieve the study’s objective, a comprehensive review of the scientific literature was conducted. This review provides insights into the current state of research on compensation for losses from the negative impacts of infrastructure facilities and identifies gaps and opportunities for further research.

Since the research concept is based on the threefold nature of negative impacts (legal, territorial and environmental) on land use, the search for articles was conducted in several areas: restrictions on rights and economic activities within the influence zones of infrastructure facilities; territorial deficiencies of land use; environmental pollution affecting human habitats; and global scientific research on the assessment of and compensation for land encumbered by infrastructure facilities.

The international bibliographic database Scopus and the Russian bibliographic database RSCI (Russian Science Citation Index) were used for information retrieval. The search was carried out using combinations of keywords: ‘environmental pollution’—208,713 articles; ‘restriction of land rights’—1574 articles; ‘territorial deficiencies’—147 articles; ‘valuation of encumbered lands’ (for RSCI) and ‘assessment of easement’ (for Scopus)—178 articles in total; and ‘compensation for losses to land owners’ (for RSCI) and ‘compensation for easement’ (for Scopus)—118 articles in total. The ‘environmental pollution’ search term, due to its large volume of results, was narrowed to ‘environmental pollution by infrastructure facilities’—895 articles. The ratio of publications in these areas across both databases is presented in Figure 1.

The keyword search yielded 2910 articles for the period 1995–2025. Areas with 500 or more articles were limited to the 2020–2025 period. As a result, 1355 articles were selected for a full-content peer review. After reviewing the abstracts and full texts, 80 sources corresponding to the research topic were selected for analysis. Of these, 52 articles were indexed in Scopus, 9 were in peer-reviewed Russian scientific editions recommended for publishing dissertation results, and 19 were from other scientific editions. Other sources were retained for several reasons: they included pioneering works on encumbered land valuation, or they covered aspects of the problem not addressed in other publications.

According to the analysis, the problems of land rights restrictions and environmental pollution from infrastructure facilities are widely covered in the scientific community, and interest in them continues to grow (Figure 2). At the same time, the valuation of encumbered lands and compensation for right holders’ losses have received insufficient attention. The emergence of territorial deficiencies from the placement of linear infrastructure facilities is also an understudied issue.

3.2. Study Methods

The dual nature of infrastructure’s influence on land use is examined using an axiomatic approach [79,80]. While the positive impacts are obvious, the negative impacts require a detailed examination of their constituent factors. Based on this postulate and a literature review, the necessity of accounting for the cumulative impacts of three factor groups—rights restrictions, territorial deficiencies and environmental pollution—is justified. Furthermore, based on the axiom of coexisting positive and negative impacts, the theory regarding the need to assess right holders’ losses is developed, and a set of compensation approaches for negative impacts is established.

Grouping, hierarchical classification, induction and deduction were applied to systematize the negative impact factors of infrastructure facilities. A hierarchical method was also used to develop the block diagram of the compensation algorithm for infrastructure facilities’ negative impacts on land use. Since a land plot affected by infrastructure facilities is a complex system whose state is difficult to assess comprehensively, a SWOT analysis was used to justify a set of approaches to compensating for the infrastructure facilities’ negative impacts on land use. In our case, the object of assessment is a land plot burdened by the impacts of infrastructure facilities. SWOT analysis allows for the assessment of the interdependent positive (strengths) and negative properties (weaknesses) of such a land plot, considering its potential, individual characteristics (internal environment) and the external market reaction (external environment). First, a selection of factors characterizing the potential use of an encumbered land plot compared with a similar unencumbered land plot was made. Second, each factor was evaluated by experts (the authors of the article) on a scale from 1 to 5 based on the attractiveness of the encumbered land plot for a potential right holder. Assessment scores of 4 and 5 correspond to positive characteristics and opportunities, while scores of 1 and 2 correspond to negative characteristics and threats. Factors with a score of 3 can be excluded, through this is not recommended (in our case, no factors scored a 3). Based on these two stages, a primary SWOT analysis matrix was compiled (Table 1 in the Results Section). From this primary matrix, an extended SWOT matrix (Table 2 in the Results Section) was developed with the possibility of an element-by-element analysis. This facilitated the development of strategic options for improving the efficiency of the object under evaluation:

-

Strategy SO (growth strategy) implies maximizing the effect of using strengths, taking into account the opportunities of the external environment;

-

Strategy WT (defense strategy) implies finding solutions to combat threats from the external environment, taking into account the weaknesses;

-

Strategies WO and ST are focused growth strategies. In the first case, the strategy is aimed at overcoming weaknesses by using opportunities; in the second, it is aimed at using strengths to minimize threats from the external environment.

4. Results

4.1. Justification of Set of Approaches to Compensating for Negative Impacts of Infrastructure Facilities

The analysis shows that the negative impact factors of infrastructure facilities on land use, which cause losses to land plots right holders, can be divided into three groups: rights restrictions (regime restrictions), territorial deficiencies and environmental pollution (Figure 3).

Not all factor groups are equally significant for different types of infrastructure facilities. For area-based facilities (e.g., the sanitary protection zone of a solid municipal waste landfill; Figure 4), the negative impacts are mostly expressed through the establishment of a special use regime within a ZSTUC. Linear facilities are characterized by the creation of territorial deficiencies, leading to irregularly shaped land plots’ parts with indented boundaries and small useable areas (e.g., protection zones of power transmission lines and power grid facilities; Figure 5). At the same time, both types of facilities are a real and/or potential source of environmental pollution in cases of non-compliance with technical regulations and sanitary norms, as well as in emergencies and during repair work.

Separate aspects of the negative impacts of each factor group are addressed in the international scientific community: environmental factors (soil, atmospheric, noise, dust, and electromagnetic pollution and their impact on human health); territorial deficiencies (compactness coefficients, elimination of interspersion, indentation of land by ZSTUC boundaries and easements, and their impact on agricultural operations); and restrictions on rights (prohibition of economic activities within ZSTUCs and easements). However, the cumulative legal, territorial and environmental impacts of infrastructure facilities on the assessment of landowner losses are not considered.

Similar to the negative impacts themselves, studies of methodological and theoretical approaches to compensating right holders for losses represent a set of disparate proposals that require systematization. It is difficult to assess which approach is the most effective, as this depends on many factors: permitted use of land, legal status, type of infrastructure, etc. A SWOT analysis was used to analyze, systematize and justify a set of compensation approaches proposed by the scientific community. As a result of the first two stages, a primary SWOT analysis matrix was constructed, presenting the positive (strengths) and negative (weaknesses) properties of the land plot burdened by infrastructure facilities, taking into account its potential, individual characteristics (internal environment) and the external market reaction (external environment) (Table 1).

Table 1. Primary SWOT analysis [compiled by the authors].

	Internal Environment	External Environment
	Strengths	Opportunities
+	Residential comfort Access to utility connections Development potential Transport accessibility	Economic development of the district Compensation for losses in case of restriction of rights and impossibility to use the land for its intended purpose Development of social infrastructure of the district Investment attractiveness of the site (sale value)
	Weaknesses	Threats
−	Violation of aesthetics Psychological discomfort Negative impact on health Rights restrictions Disturbed and polluted land Irregular land parcel configuration (territorial deficiencies)	Degradation of the environment Ambiguous court practice on calculation of damages when restricting rights Rising tariffs for public utilities High level of taxes Lack of compensation for territorial and environmental disadvantage Restrictions on construction

Table 1. Primary SWOT analysis [compiled by the authors].

	Internal Environment	External Environment
	Strengths	Opportunities
+	Residential comfort Access to utility connections Development potential Transport accessibility	Economic development of the district Compensation for losses in case of restriction of rights and impossibility to use the land for its intended purpose Development of social infrastructure of the district Investment attractiveness of the site (sale value)
	Weaknesses	Threats
−	Violation of aesthetics Psychological discomfort Negative impact on health Rights restrictions Disturbed and polluted land Irregular land parcel configuration (territorial deficiencies)	Degradation of the environment Ambiguous court practice on calculation of damages when restricting rights Rising tariffs for public utilities High level of taxes Lack of compensation for territorial and environmental disadvantage Restrictions on construction

An element-by-element analysis was then performed to identify strategies for different scenarios. Strengths and weaknesses factors were cross-referenced with opportunity and threat factors. In our case, the strategies obtained from this analysis represent the desired approaches to compensating for the negative impacts of infrastructure facilities on land use (Table 2).

Table 2. Element-by-element SWOT analysis [compiled by the authors].

	Opportunities (O)	Threats (T)
	- Economic development of the district - Compensation for losses in case of restriction of rights and impossibility to use land for its intended purpose - Development of social infrastructure of the district - Investment attractiveness of the site (sale value)	- Degradation of the environment - Ambiguous court practice on calculation of damages when restricting rights - Increase in utility tariffs - High level of taxes - Lack of compensation for territorial and environmental disadvantages - Restrictions on construction
Strengths (S)	Activities (SO)	Activities (ST)
- Residential comfort - Access to utility connections - Development potential - Transport accessibility	Loss assessment	Cadastral value adjustment Establishment of environmental payments Loss assessment State regulating utility tariffs
Weaknesses (W)	Activities (WO)	Activities (WT)
- Violation of aesthetics - Psychological discomfort - Negative impact on health - Rights restrictions - Disturbed and polluted land - Irregular land parcel configuration (territorial deficiencies)	Compensation for industry sector losses Establishment of environmental payments Loss assessment	Redemption of encumbered land Conversion to another land category Change in permitted use Compensation for industry sector losses Establishment of environmental payments

Table 2. Element-by-element SWOT analysis [compiled by the authors].

	Opportunities (O)	Threats (T)
	- Economic development of the district - Compensation for losses in case of restriction of rights and impossibility to use land for its intended purpose - Development of social infrastructure of the district - Investment attractiveness of the site (sale value)	- Degradation of the environment - Ambiguous court practice on calculation of damages when restricting rights - Increase in utility tariffs - High level of taxes - Lack of compensation for territorial and environmental disadvantages - Restrictions on construction
Strengths (S)	Activities (SO)	Activities (ST)
- Residential comfort - Access to utility connections - Development potential - Transport accessibility	Loss assessment	Cadastral value adjustment Establishment of environmental payments Loss assessment State regulating utility tariffs
Weaknesses (W)	Activities (WO)	Activities (WT)
- Violation of aesthetics - Psychological discomfort - Negative impact on health - Rights restrictions - Disturbed and polluted land - Irregular land parcel configuration (territorial deficiencies)	Compensation for industry sector losses Establishment of environmental payments Loss assessment	Redemption of encumbered land Conversion to another land category Change in permitted use Compensation for industry sector losses Establishment of environmental payments

The following approaches to compensating for the negative impacts of infrastructure facilities have been identified: cadastral value adjustment, loss assessment, the establishment of environmental payments and compensation for industry sector losses. In addition, to avoid the threat of tariff increases by supplying organizations, a mechanism for regulating utility tariffs is necessary. Another approach, applicable in cases of maximum negative impact and a lack of opportunities for mitigating it, is the use of state regulation tools: the redemption of encumbered land, conversion to another land category, and change in permitted use. The obtained approaches are systematized and presented in Figure 6.

It is worth noting that the obtained approaches are not mutually exclusive but rather complement each other to create a more complete and fair compensation mechanism of infrastructure facilities’ negative impacts on land use. The application of one or another approach depends on the right holder, the form of ownership, the type of permitted use and other characteristics of the encumbered land. Based on the element-by-element analysis (Table 2), it can be concluded that the most suitable approaches (found in three of the four strategy options) are loss assessment and the establishment of environmental payments. The loss assessment approach is relevant for privately owned land, when the landowner suffers losses due to the inability to use the land most efficiently. The approach of establishing environmental payments is relevant for land where ownership is not delineated. In this case, there is no need to compensate for losses associated with rights restrictions and territorial deficiencies, but the importance of maintaining the ecological balance of the environment remains. The approach of adjusting the cadastral value of encumbered land and land tax serves as an additional tool to improve the fairness of the taxation system. Compensation for industry sector losses can be used in cases of losses to a specific industry (e.g., agriculture).

Thus, to create a more complete and fair compensation mechanism of infrastructure facilities’ negative impacts on land use, in addition to loss assessment and cadastral value adjustment, this study additionally defines and justifies approaches based on establishing environmental payments, compensating for industry sector losses and using state regulation tools (change in permitted use, conversion to another land category and land plot redemption), as well as a mechanism for state regulating utility tariffs (Figure 6).

4.2. Developing an Algorithm for Compensation for Negative Impacts of Infrastructure Facilities

Another problem is the lack of a clearly defined sequence of actions to compensate for losses from infrastructure facilities’ negative impacts. To solve this, it is necessary to determine the object of negative impacts and the object that creates it, the party incurring losses and the party providing compensation, and a sequence of actions and requirements for land restoration and reclamation. The party incurring losses may be the land right holder (individual, legal entity or state) or an industry sector (e.g., agriculture, in case of the withdrawal of encumbered lands from use). The party providing compensation can be both the facility owner (the beneficiary) and the state. In addition, it is necessary to determine who will carry out the remediation and restoration of the contaminated land and within what timeframe. For example, within the influence zones of some infrastructure, it is possible to place objects whose operation does not contradict the established regime (e.g., paid car parks, payment terminals, ATMs, advertising structures, bio-toilets, warehouses, trade pavilions, etc.), providing an opportunity to generate income. Thus, public authorities who own unallocated land within these zones have an interest in involving unused territories in economic circulation [19]. One possible requirement for restoring disturbed and contaminated lands is a baseline soil quality assessment (before easement establishment or construction) to calculate compensation for land use and restore its properties to their original state, as proposed by Grčman H. and Zupanc V. [50]. The authors have developed an algorithm for compensating for the negative impacts of infrastructure facilities on land use (i.e., compensating right holders), depending on the legal status of the land and the party incurring losses, presented as a block diagram in Figure 7.

To implement this algorithm, it is necessary to develop methodological support for assessing the losses of land right holders, determining the correction factors for cadastral value, calculating the compensation for industry sector losses and calculating the amount of environmental payments. This will be the purpose of further research.

5. Discussion

One of the main approaches identified through SWOT analysis is loss assessment. This result corresponds to the growing interest among scientists like Grčman H. and Zupanc V. [50], Stopar I. and Kovač M.Š. [75], Šnajberg O. [76] and Sherwood D. [73,74] in developing a methodology for assessing compensation for the negative impacts of infrastructure facilities. Alongside loss assessment, establishing environmental payments has been identified as an important research area. This approach correlates with the studies by Tachovsky M. and Bell G.R. [1], Marabaoğlu S. and Uzun B. [5], Makarov O.A. et al. [45,67], Rambonilaza T. et al. [78], Novikova T. et al. [70], Melnichuk A.Yu. and Antonenko E.V. [68,69] and Popov V.K. and Kozina M.V. [71], who are engaged in developing theoretical and methodological provisions for incorporating ecological factors into land assessment and compensating for environmental pollution. We, in turn, propose to account for environmental pollution as part of the loss assessment from cumulative impacts and as a separate approach to establishing a system of environmental payments when compensation for other negative impact factors is not needed.

The SWOT analysis method allowed us to identify the approach based on compensation for industry sector losses, which has not yet been reflected in modern scientific developments. The approach related to cadastral value adjustment, widely studied by Sutyagin V.Yu. [61], Kretinin K.V. [62], Varlamov A.A. and Galchenko S.A. [63] and Skatov M.A. [59], is supplemented by a mechanism of state regulation of utility payments. In addition, the authors’ proposal to consider the combined effect of three groups of negative factors allows us to combine and structure the existing scientific developments by Kitsakisa D. et al. [21,22], Foryś I. et al. [23], Giluca A. et al. [26] Bogdan B. and Barańska A. [6], Grčman H. and Zupanc V. [50], Wadleya D.A. et al. [52] and Harleman N. [39], who have been devoted to considering the negative impacts on land use of individual factors in land valuation.

Thus, this study allowed us to systematize disparate scientific research on the negative impacts of infrastructure on human health, economic activity, soil fertility and the use of agricultural machinery and propose the most promising approaches to implementing a loss compensation mechanism for right holders.

The developed compensation algorithm includes different approaches depending on the initial parameters of the object. In contrast to the existing judicial procedure for loss compensation, presented in the studies by Foryś I. et al. [23] and Chmykhalo E.Yu. [56], the proposed algorithm considers the interests of all parties incurring losses, the legal status of land, and the possibility of its further use for its intended purpose.

One of the important consequences of developing these approaches, from the perspective of landowners, is an increase in social justice in taxation and loss compensation. From the state’s perspective, developing the institution of compensation will contribute to the investment attractiveness of certain areas, rational territorial planning, the involvement of unused encumbered land in economic circulation, the reduction in irrationally used land resources and funding for rehabilitation measures. For certain production sectors that have been significantly affected, it will be possible to compensate for losses and additional costs associated with the inability to use land most efficiently or with the need to develop new territories that require additional financial investments.

The applicability of this study’s results is limited to land affected by infrastructure, i.e., land that, due to these impacts, cannot be used fully, efficiently and rationally in accordance with its intended purpose. At this stage, the peculiarities of negative impacts on capital construction projects located near infrastructure facilities have not been studied. This paper presents theoretical proposals to compensate for the negative impacts of infrastructure facilities on land use without developing their methodological support.

6. Conclusions

The analysis of regulatory documents and existing scientific developments in assessing the negative impacts of infrastructure facilities on land use allows us to draw the following conclusions.

First, in modern theory and practice, different scientific schools hold different opinions regarding the impacts of infrastructure facilities on land use. On the one hand, infrastructure is an integral component of a comfortable living environment; on the other, it is a source of negative impacts on land resources’ use (rights restrictions, territorial deficiencies and environmental pollution).

Second, in market-based economies, compensation for losses is a primary recourse for landowners affected by the negative impacts of infrastructure facilities. However, these landowners often lack systematic mechanisms to receive compensation for rights restrictions, territorial deficiencies and environmental pollution.

Third, due to the absence of a direct market response to the negative impacts of infrastructure facilities, non-market compensation approaches are needed. These may include adjusting the cadastral value of land, establishing compensation payments, creating environmental funds with periodic contributions from infrastructure owners and compensating for losses in the form of actual damages and lost profits.

Fourth, the scientific review showed that while some countries with more active land markets can use a comparative approach to assessing the impact of ZSTUCs and/or compensated easements, this is not the case in Russia. In Russia, ZSTUCs are not legally equivalent to compensated easements, which necessitates the development of a methodology for calculating losses due to the negative impacts of infrastructure facilities.

Fifth, the analysis of existing research shows that it is important to account for the cumulative impacts of negative factors (rights restrictions, territorial deficiencies and environmental pollution), rather than limiting compensation to only the legal factors provided for by legislation.

Thus, this work synthesizes findings from disparate studies on individual negative factors to establish a set of approaches to compensating for the cumulative negative impacts of infrastructure facilities on land use. This study identifies promising areas for further research: the definition of a unified framework (system) for compensation for losses from the negative impacts of infrastructure facilities (defining who is compensated, by whom and how); the development of a methodology for assessing the losses of land right holders from the cumulative impacts of legal, territorial and environmental factors in the infrastructure facilities’ zone of impact; the development of a methodology for calculating compensation payments arising from industry sector losses; the development of a methodology for calculating environmental payments; and the improvement in encumbered land cadastral valuation methodology.