All,
You may want to take a longer perspective on "mitigation pays". One of the
common arguments for flood mitigation works is the resulting reduction of
damage. I understand the US Corps of Engineers has been doing cost-benefit
analysis on river and coastal defense works for some time (and decided to
not undertake projects in some cases), so they could be a good source of
methods and data.
The hazards field in Geography has been fairly active in the US in looking
at off-setting costs and benefits from flood mitigation and prevention
efforts. A good source of analysis which goes back 70+ years.
But you probably want to be careful about what type of mitigation you say
pays. The evolving argument against structural protection from floods is
that these measures reduce near-term risk (i.e., the frequency of floods),
but increase losses over the long term, since development in protected
areas is greater than if protection has not been provided. (This is similar
to the moral hazard in providing insurance.)
A more sustainable approach is to reduce risk and vulnerability or build
resilience. We have to remember that mitigation can make the disaster less
likely, but doesn't often make the hazard go away.
Kelly
|