Laserfiche WebLink
<br />No dollar value was included for the sense of security and social <br />order enjoyed by the residents along lena Gulch as a result of the <br />recommended improvements. Any evaluations in this area under the pres- <br />ent scope of work would have been quite arbitrary and highly specula- <br />tive. A proper determination of these benefits would require an exten- <br />sive study conducted by a highly qualified team of sociologists, urban <br />planners, and engIneers. The importance of these intangibles, how~ver, <br />should not be ignored. Rather, they should be carefully wei~hed as a <br /> <br />most important element in the land use decision-making process. The <br />recognitio~ of the existence of these intangible benefits se~arate <br />from the benefit/cost analysis is an essential step toward achieving <br />proper flood plain usage." <br /> <br />One of the difficulties inherent in considering intangible costs <br /> <br />and benefits in evaluation of small UDFC projects is that the cost of <br /> <br />analysis may be excessive. Some of the rather experimental techniques <br /> <br />such as described in [6] or subjective techniques such as [25] might be <br /> <br />better left out of small project evaluation studies. Some recent pro- <br /> <br />mising approaches which might be applicable to large projects, particularly <br /> <br />those with multipurpose components, have been reported recently, however <br /> <br />[2]. According to this research, it was concluded that aesthetic and <br /> <br />recreational benefits are neither intangible nor insignificant. Further- <br /> <br />more, they concluded that ultimately, increase in real estate value near <br /> <br />urban water projects can be shown to measure these benefits. These <br /> <br />techniques remain to be tested further but they do show promise for <br /> <br />improvement in the assessment of benefits. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />48 <br />