Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />29 <br /> <br />III, CONSIDERATION OF OTHER BENEFITS <br />As part of the investigation leading to the report cited in (2), <br />the writers investigated the literature on the evaluation of social <br />and environmental benefits and costs of water resources projects. <br />Literally hundreds of reports are now available on this subject. <br />Emerging and often frustrating requirements for environmental and <br />social impact statements represent the state-of-the-art of assess- <br />ments of this type. <br />These techniques are in a state of infancy compared to the economic <br />analysis presented previously, Accordingly, no specific, step-by-step <br />guidelines can be recommended as part of this methodology. The reader <br />is referred to (2) as a starting point for studying the literature on <br />this subject. <br />Therefore, the analyst must find a way to present to the decision <br />makers the pertinent information concerning non-damage costs and <br />benefits in order that this information can be considered at the same <br />time as the damage reduction information, <br />The method suggested in this document follows the general pro- <br />cedure of the U, S, Water Resources Council (6) which extensively <br />studied the problem of evaluating project feasibility. <br />The reader should obtain a copy of the Principles and Standards <br />(6) if he desires an in-depth understanding of the evaluation tech- <br />niques involved. For this methodology, an abbreviated version is <br />presented to demonstrate its application to UDFC. <br />Briefly, the method consists of listing in the form of a matrix <br />beneficial and adverse effects of each project receiving consideration, <br />This technique is illustrated in the example to follow. <br />