Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Abstract <br /> <br />Flood proofing a new commercial building at Jersey <br />Shore, Pennsylvania in a manner that will meet the mini- <br />mum floodplain regulations of the National Flood Insur, <br />ance Program, is not unduly costly and is economically <br />feasible, When computed on a present value basis, the <br />flood proofing costs are more than oflset by either reduc- <br />tion in flood insurance premiums or reduction in flood <br />losses, Another benefit associated with flood proofing is <br />the increased marketability of rental space, <br /> <br />The four flood proofing construction approaches <br />examined include a structure (1) wet flood proofed, (2) <br />raised on fill, (3) partially raised on fill and equipped with <br />watertight closures, and (4) raised on columns, Wet <br />flood proofing, which is not accepted by the National <br />Flood Insurance Program at present, is not economically <br />feasible, Benefit/cost ratios are favorable for the other <br />three flood proofing approaches, The most favorable <br />ratio is for a building raised on fill. Its benefit/cost ratio in <br />terms of reduced insurance premiums is 5.96; alterna- <br />tively, when flood loss reductions are considered, the <br />benefit/cost ratio is 3.47, <br /> <br />The findings and analytical methods employed in this <br />investigation can be used as guidelines for commercial <br />flood proofing eflorts at other locations throughout the <br />Nation, Factors which may influence the appropriate- <br />ness and cost effectiveness of each approach at various <br />locations include: topography, soil conditions, develop, <br />ment density, construction budget, architectural style, <br />and the depth, duration and frequency of flooding, <br />