|
<br />Because these figures are based on the elevation of the
<br />building, any reduction in damages due to wet flood
<br />proofing of the structure is not addressed, For purposes
<br />of this anaiysis, it was assumed that wet flood proofing
<br />would reduce structural damages by 50% (compared
<br />with expected damages for the basic building) but would
<br />not reduce damages to contents, These assumptions
<br />were based on the building design characteristics out-
<br />lined below,
<br />
<br />Because the design does not prevent flood water inun-
<br />dation, damage to contents was assumed to be the
<br />same as the basic building, In the wet flood proofed
<br />building, unlike the basic building, the walls, flooring, and
<br />mechanical systems would be protected from severe
<br />damage, and would require cleaning and inspection, but
<br />not replacement. Depending on the severity of the scour'
<br />ing action of the flood water within the building and the
<br />duration of inundation, some damage to the hung ceiling,
<br />electrical system, and windows would be anticipated,
<br />though damages would be reduced compared to a struc-
<br />ture with no flood proofing,
<br />
<br />For estimating damage to contents it is important to
<br />determine what kinds of activity are located on the first
<br />floor and what kinds are on the second floor, Although
<br />this issue was not addressed in the general design of the
<br />structure, several assumptions were made for purposes
<br />of calculating potential flood damages, It was assumed
<br />that five shops - the pharmacy, meat market, men's
<br />clothing store, family shoe store, and jewelry store - re'
<br />quire a first floor location in order to altract walk-in busi,
<br />ness, Space requirements then indicated that the
<br />restaurant and real estate office would be located on the
<br />second floor. The restaurant was assigned a second
<br />floor iocation partially because removing restaurant
<br />equipment in case of flooding could be difficult and par-
<br />tially because the restaurant should be able to attract
<br />customers without a first floor location, Simiiarly, the real
<br />estate office should not be dependent on walk,in trade,
<br />
<br />10
<br />
<br />Average Annual Business Losses. Business losses,
<br />though not related directly to the structure, were calcu-
<br />lated on an average annual basis, Business losses due
<br />to interruption include overhead cost incurred and the
<br />uncompensated loss of wages and profits, The numbers
<br />used were derived from Corps data, which take com-
<br />pensation into account." The information supplied by
<br />the Corps indicates that the average time lost by busi,
<br />nasses close to the river in Jersey Shore is three days.
<br />The time lost inciudes both the time of inundation and
<br />the time required for Clean-up and repair,
<br />
<br />For the basic building (No Flood Proofing), business
<br />losses to first floor occupants were calculated at fullloss
<br />potential. Second floor business losses were calculated
<br />at 50% of normai sales recognizing some patronage is
<br />lost due to inaccessibility and some business area is lost
<br />due to temporary storage of first floor contents, Business
<br />losses for the wet flood proofed building were assumed
<br />to be 90% of those for the basic building, because the
<br />time required for repair would be shortened,
<br />
<br />Similarly, business loss estimates for the buildings
<br />elevated to one foot above the base flood level were
<br />adjusted to account for the reduced time required for
<br />clean,up and repair, For first floor occupants, full busi-
<br />ness losses were assumed up to one foot below the
<br />base flood; above this level, losses were calculated at
<br />50% of full loss potential. Second floor business losses
<br />were calculated at 25%, reflecting only losses due to
<br />business interruption for the duration ofthe high water
<br />levels,
<br />
<br />For the building elevated on columns, business losses
<br />were calculated at full loss potential up to 555 MSL and
<br />at 50% of full loss potential at higher elevations for first
<br />floor occupants. Second floor business losses were cal-
<br />culated at 25%,
<br />
<br />Benefit/Cost Ratios. Reduction of average annual
<br />flood damage and business loss potential was con-
<br />sidered a benefit of flood proofing, A benefit/cost ratio
<br />for each building type other than the basic building was
<br />determined by dividing the present value of these bene-
<br />fits by the present value of increased building costs for
<br />each flood proofed building,
<br />
|