IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v108y2021i3d10.1007_s11069-021-04814-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost–benefit analysis of flood mitigation measures: a case study employing high-performance hydraulic and damage modelling

Author

Listed:
  • Daniela Molinari

    (Politecnico di Milano)

  • Susanna Dazzi

    (University of Parma)

  • Edoardo Gattai

    (Politecnico di Milano)

  • Guido Minucci

    (Politecnico di Milano)

  • Giulia Pesaro

    (Politecnico di Milano)

  • Alessio Radice

    (Politecnico di Milano)

  • Renato Vacondio

    (University of Parma)

Abstract

This paper shows a detailed, advanced procedure to implement cost–benefit analyses (CBAs) in order to assess the effectiveness of flood mitigation measures. The town of Lodi (North of Italy) has been selected as a case study for the research work, as it was hit by a large flood in 2002 for which several data are available. In order to compute the benefits, in terms of avoided damage with the mitigation measure in place, micro-scale damage models developed within the Flood-IMPAT + project were used. The great amount of input data for such models comes from results of a two-dimensional river modelling, for what concern the hazard parameters, and from open-source database, to evaluate the vulnerability and the exposure of the hit area. The research highlights that technological-advanced, high-performance hydraulic models allow taking into account a variety of hazard scenarios, with reasonable computational time, supporting the proper accounting of the probabilistic nature of risk in CBAs. Nonetheless, such high-resolution tools support the implementation of micro-scale damage assessment models, which can provide information on the distribution of benefits in the investigated area, increasing the effectiveness of CBAs for policy making.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniela Molinari & Susanna Dazzi & Edoardo Gattai & Guido Minucci & Giulia Pesaro & Alessio Radice & Renato Vacondio, 2021. "Cost–benefit analysis of flood mitigation measures: a case study employing high-performance hydraulic and damage modelling," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 108(3), pages 3061-3084, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:108:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s11069-021-04814-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-021-04814-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-021-04814-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-021-04814-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Independent Evaluation Group, 2010. "Cost-Benefit Analysis in World Bank Projects," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 2561.
    2. Gowdy, John M., 2007. "Toward an experimental foundation for benefit-cost analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 649-655, September.
    3. Renato Vacondio & Francesca Aureli & Alessia Ferrari & Paolo Mignosa & Alessandro Dal Palù, 2016. "Simulation of the January 2014 flood on the Secchia River using a fast and high-resolution 2D parallel shallow-water numerical scheme," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 80(1), pages 103-125, January.
    4. World Bank, 2010. "Cost-Benefit Analysis in World Bank Projects," World Bank Publications - Reports 10481, The World Bank Group.
    5. Brouwer, Roy & van Ek, Remco, 2004. "Integrated ecological, economic and social impact assessment of alternative flood control policies in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 1-21, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. R. Mechler, 2016. "Reviewing estimates of the economic efficiency of disaster risk management: opportunities and limitations of using risk-based cost–benefit analysis," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(3), pages 2121-2147, April.
    2. Kilby, Christopher, 2015. "Assessing the impact of World Bank preparation on project outcomes," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 111-123.
    3. Hajkowicz, Stefan, 2006. "Taking a closer look at multiple criteria analysis and economic evaluation," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 139785, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Allan Beltrán & David Maddison & Robert J. R. Elliott, 2018. "Assessing the Economic Benefits of Flood Defenses: A Repeat‐Sales Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2340-2367, November.
    5. Klein, Sharon J.W. & Coffey, Stephanie, 2016. "Building a sustainable energy future, one community at a time," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 867-880.
    6. Sebastian Scheuer & Dagmar Haase & Volker Meyer, 2011. "Exploring multicriteria flood vulnerability by integrating economic, social and ecological dimensions of flood risk and coping capacity: from a starting point view towards an end point view of vulnera," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 58(2), pages 731-751, August.
    7. David Nortes Martínez & Frédéric Grelot & Pauline Bremond & Stefano Farolfi & Juliette Rouchier, 2021. "Are interactions important in estimating flood damage to economic entities? The case of wine-making in France," Post-Print hal-03609616, HAL.
    8. Xinqi Zheng & Bing Geng & Xiang Wu & Lina Lv & Yecui Hu, 2014. "Performance Evaluation of Industrial Land Policy in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(8), pages 1-16, July.
    9. Venkatachalam, L., 2008. "Behavioral economics for environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 640-645, November.
    10. Posthumus, H. & Rouquette, J.R. & Morris, J. & Gowing, D.J.G. & Hess, T.M., 2010. "A framework for the assessment of ecosystem goods and services; a case study on lowland floodplains in England," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1510-1523, May.
    11. Lundgren, Jakob, 2022. "Unity through disunity: Strengths, values, and tensions in the disciplinary discourse of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    12. T. D. Pol & S. Gabbert & H.-P. Weikard & E. C. Ierland & E. M. T. Hendrix, 2017. "A Minimax Regret Analysis of Flood Risk Management Strategies Under Climate Change Uncertainty and Emerging Information," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1087-1109, December.
    13. Frits Bos & Thomas van der Pol & Gerbert Romijn, 2018. "Should CBA’s include a correction for the marginal excess burden of taxation?," CPB Discussion Paper 370.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    14. Anna Rita Scorzini & Maurizio Leopardi, 2017. "River basin planning: from qualitative to quantitative flood risk assessment: the case of Abruzzo Region (central Italy)," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 88(1), pages 71-93, August.
    15. Giulia Capotorti & Simone Valeri & Arianna Giannini & Valerio Minorenti & Mariagrazia Piarulli & Paolo Audisio, 2023. "On the Role of Natural and Induced Landscape Heterogeneity for the Support of Pollinators: A Green Infrastructure Perspective Applied in a Peri-Urban System," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-29, January.
    16. Birol, Ekin & Koundouri, Phoebe & Kountouris, Yannis, 2009. "Using the Choice Experiment Method to Inform Flood Risk Reduction Policies in the Upper Silesia Region of Poland," MPRA Paper 38426, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Ansell, Christopher K. & Bartenberger, Martin, 2016. "Varieties of experimentalism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 64-73.
    18. Michael B. Wironen & Robert V. Bartlett & Jon D. Erickson, 2019. "Deliberation and the Promise of a Deeply Democratic Sustainability Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, February.
    19. Volker Meyer & Sally Priest & Christian Kuhlicke, 2012. "Economic evaluation of structural and non-structural flood risk management measures: examples from the Mulde River," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 62(2), pages 301-324, June.
    20. Scheierling, Susanne M., 2011. "Assessing the direct economic effects of reallocating irrigation water to alternative uses : concepts and an application," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5797, The World Bank.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:108:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s11069-021-04814-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.