scholarly journals Are embankments a good flood control strategy? A case study on the Kosi river

Water Policy ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (S1) ◽  
pp. 75-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Somanathan
Keyword(s):  
Flood Control ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Flood Damage ◽  
Gangetic Plain ◽  
River Flooding ◽  
Severe Flood ◽  
First Pass

Whether embankments should be used to control floods is a question of great importance in the eastern Gangetic plain, where embankment breaches cause severe flood damage every year and huge damage due to major breaches every few years. Critics of the embankment policy have called for a strategy of living with floods by building dispersed infrastructure to cope with floods. However, no cost–benefit analysis of alternative strategies is available. This paper makes a first pass at evaluating embankments. Using 2 years or more of data from 504 households in 28 villages in the floodplain of the Kosi river in north Bihar, the paper compares agricultural output, wage incomes, unemployment and other indicators of well-being in villages subject to flooding from rivers with those from villages not subject to such flooding. The paper finds that, for the most part, villages subject to river flooding are no worse off than villages not subject to such flooding. Thus, the evidence provides no support for the embankment strategy.

scholarly journals Economic analysis of ecosystem based adaptation and engineering options: A case study from Udayapur, Nepal

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 35-42
Author(s):  
Dinesh Chandra Devkota ◽  
Kamal Thapa ◽  
Bhaskar Kharki
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
High Benefit ◽  
Adaptation Options

Ecosystem services are vital to our well-being as they directly or indirectly support our survival and quality of life. But, the growing impact of climate change diminishes the benefit from ecosystem services. Therefore, identifying possible applicable adaptation options are inevitable to reduce the effect of climate change. The present research is based on a case study of Ksedi River watershed, Ajgada Village in Udaypur district of Nepal. The study demonstrates the comparison between different options to deal with flood and make a sound decision, based on economic rationale for long-term benefits. The present study compares ecosystem based adaptation options with engineering options using cost benefit analysis in order to protect village from flooding. Through stakeholder and expert consultations, ecosystem based adaptation options and economic options that are feasible in the village and catchment to mitigate the floods were listed. Economic analysis of these options and the different combinations were done using cost benefit analysis. Analysis was carried out for each of the different combination of options. Focus on ecosystem based adaptation options provide high benefit to cost return in terms of avoided damages and considering engineering options efficient in flood and erosion control in initial stage in spite of its high cost. The study suggests that reforestation in upland forest areas; plantation along riverbed and management of rangeland should be prioritized. Similarly, preparation of flood model, flood height damage curve and flood vulnerable maps specific to the site will help decision makers to implement site specific adaptation options.

scholarly journals How does a nature-based solution for flood control compare to a technical solution? Case study evidence from Belgium

AMBIO ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis Turkelboom ◽  
Rolinde Demeyer ◽  
Liesbet Vranken ◽  
Piet De Becker ◽  
Filip Raymaekers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Flood Control ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Business Case ◽  
Technical Solution ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Flood Water ◽  
Case Study Analysis ◽  
Sufficient Space

AbstractThe strategy of reconnecting rivers with their floodplains currently gains popularity because it not only harnesses natural capacities of floodplains but also increases social co-benefits and biodiversity. In this paper, we present an example of a successfully implemented nature-based solution (NBS) in the Dijle valley in the centre of Belgium. The research objective is to retrospectively assess cost and benefit differences between a technical solution (storm basins) and an alternative NBS, here the restoration of the alluvial floodplain. The method is a comparative social cost–benefit analysis. The case study analysis reveals similar flood security, lower costs, more ecosystem services benefits and higher biodiversity values associated with the NBS option in comparison to the technical alternative. However, the business case for working with NBS depends substantially on the spatial and socio-ecological context. Chances for successful NBS implementation increase in conditions of sufficient space to retain flood water, when flood water is of sufficient quality, and when economic activity and housing in the floodplain is limited.

Measuring Social Welfare

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew D. Adler
Keyword(s):  
Social Welfare ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Probability Distributions ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Risk Regulation ◽  
The Social ◽  
Policy Impacts ◽  
The Difference

The social welfare function (SWF) framework is a powerful tool for evaluating governmental policies in light of human well-being. The framework originates in theoretical welfare economics and is widely used in contemporary economic scholarship, although not (yet) in governmental practice. This book is intended to provide an accessible, yet reasonably rigorous overview of the SWF approach. The framework has three components: an interpersonally comparable measure of well-being, which functions to translate outcomes into lists (“vectors”) of well-being numbers, one for each person in the population; a rule (the SWF) for ranking well-being vectors, such as the utilitarian SWF (which simply adds up well-being numbers), a continuous-prioritarian SWF (which gives greater weight to the worse off), or some other; and a procedure for ranking policies, understood as probability distributions across outcomes. Each component of the SWF framework is reviewed in detail; in doing so, the book engages both the economic literature on SWFs and philosophical scholarship regarding individual well-being, ethics, and distributive justice. The book also clarifies the difference between the SWF approach and cost-benefit analysis (CBA), which uses money rather than an interpersonally well-being measure as the scale for quantifying policy impacts. The book includes a detailed case study of risk regulation—illustrating how the SWF framework can be used in practice and how it contrasts with CBA. The book is written to be accessible to readers without much mathematical training, but is backed up by an extensive mathematical appendix.

Book Reviews

2015 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 1033-1036
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Chicago School ◽  
Associate Professor ◽  
Law School ◽  
Hedonic Theory ◽  
The Law ◽  
Institute Of Technology

Matthew D. Adler of Duke University reviews “Happiness and the Law”, by John Bronsteen, Christopher Buccafusco, and Jonathan S. Masur. The Econlit abstract of this book begins: “Assesses how the law affects people's quality of life with a particular focus on criminal punishment and civil lawsuits. Discusses measuring happiness; well-being analysis; well-being analysis versus cost–benefit analysis; happiness and punishment; adaptation, affective forecasting, and civil litigation; some problems with preference theories and objective theories; a hedonic theory of well-being; addressing objections to the hedonic theory; and the future of happiness and the law. Bronsteen is a professor in the Loyola University Chicago School of Law. Buccafusco is an associate professor in the Chicago-Kent School of Law and Codirector of the Center for Empirical Studies of Intellectual Property at the Illinois Institute of Technology. Masur is John P. Wilson Professor of Law in the University of Chicago Law School.”

scholarly journals The ALARP Principle in the Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Acceptability of Investment Risk

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 4668 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Nesticò ◽  
Shuquan He ◽  
Gianluigi De Mare ◽  
Renato Benintendi ◽  
Gabriella Maselli
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Risk Mitigation ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Investment Risk ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Mitigation Design ◽  
The Cost

The process of allocating financial resources is extremely complex—both because the selection of investments depends on multiple, and interrelated, variables, and constraints that limit the eligibility domain of the solutions, and because the feasibility of projects is influenced by risk factors. In this sense, it is essential to develop economic evaluations on a probabilistic basis. Nevertheless, for the civil engineering sector, the literature emphasizes the centrality of risk management, in order to establish interventions for risk mitigation. On the other hand, few methodologies are available to systematically compare ante and post mitigation design risk, along with the verification of the economic convenience of these actions. The aim of the paper is to demonstrate how these limits can be at least partially overcome by integrating, in the traditional Cost-Benefit Analysis schemes, the As Low as Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) logic. According to it, the risk is tolerable only if it is impossible to reduce it further or if the costs to mitigate it are disproportionate to the benefits obtainable. The research outlines the phases of an innovative protocol for managing investment risks. On the basis of a case study dealing with a project for the recovery and transformation of an ancient medieval village into a widespread-hotel, the novelty of the model consists of the characterization of acceptability and tolerability thresholds of the investment risk, as well as its ability to guarantee the triangular balance between risks, costs and benefits deriving from mitigation options.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document