My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD04820
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
FLOOD04820
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:47:23 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 1:04:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Basin
Statewide
Title
Evaluation and Implementation of Urban Drainage and Flood Control Projects Completion Report
Date
6/1/1974
Prepared By
CSU Environmental Resources Center,
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
141
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />The value of intangible benefits should not be overlooked, and should <br /> <br /> <br />be stressed in the narrative of the engineer's report. Once enumerated, <br /> <br /> <br />proper evaluation of them will be made by the decisionmaking body. Such <br /> <br /> <br />benefits may be responsible for alternative selection among closely <br /> <br /> <br />ranked alternatives. <br /> <br /> <br />The occupants of flood hazard areas suffer a hardship because of <br /> <br /> <br />the everpresent uncertainty of when the next flood will occur and how <br /> <br /> <br />serious it will be. It has been shown that people are willing to pay <br /> <br /> <br />annual insurance premiums exceeding their expected annual losses to <br /> <br /> <br />avoid financial disaster or even the financial inconvenience of irregular <br /> <br /> <br />budgeting [3]. The excess premium amounts to an une~nty damage, <br /> <br /> <br />elimination of which would become a benefit. The calculation of this <br /> <br /> <br />sense of security benefit is not straightforward and requires a study <br /> <br /> <br />of practices in insurance buying within the study area. This type of <br /> <br /> <br />benefit is not usually included in evaluation of UDPC projects. When <br /> <br /> <br />unidentified, this benefit is usually included with the intangibles. <br /> <br /> <br />The state-of-the-art of evaluating environmental intangibles was <br /> <br /> <br />recently reviewed in a report by Coomber and Biswas [6]. The purpose <br /> <br /> <br />of the study was to "consider the possibility of accurate assessment <br /> <br /> <br />of the values of environmental intangibles." They demonstrate that <br /> <br /> <br />~elative values of intangibles are easier to estimate than ah60tute <br /> <br /> <br />values. They argue for uniformity and consistency in the application <br /> <br /> <br />of intangible benefits and costs, a need which is rather obvious <br /> <br /> <br />when the influence of the analyst is considered. They are honest <br /> <br /> <br />and to the point in admitting that the attention given to recreational <br /> <br /> <br />benefits (as one type of .i.>>tang.i.ble benefit) may be excessive and <br /> <br /> <br />that there is currently no way to estimate the important social <br /> <br /> <br />benefits that cannot be estimated through demand functions. <br /> <br />45 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.