Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:10:05.018Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Non-Linear Programming Approach to Floodplain Management With Non-Structural Alternatives*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2016

Jawahar L. Kaul  and
Cleve E. Willis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is apparently a growing awareness of the role of non-structural measures as an important part of an overall flood damage reduction program. This awareness has come in part with the realization that structural measures often provide a false sense of security to floodplain occupants and can, then, result in increased food damages — contrary to their intended purpose. To be sure, restrictions prohibiting all development in flood prone areas is a polar case (which will eliminate all damages). There are no a priori reasons to believe that all uses should be prohibited from all floodplain areas. Some of these areas can, in fact, be put to economic use by land use management such that benefits derived outweigh costs associated with such development.

The objectives underlying this investigation, then, are (i) to develop a methodology useful to planners at several levels for efficient floodplain management, considering both structural and non-structural measures and (ii) to demonstrate the usefulness of the methodology by applying it to a selected floodplain in the Connecticut River Basin.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , December 1975 , pp. 1 - 7
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The work upon which this report is based was supported in part by funds provided by the USDI Office of Water Research and Technology, as authorized under the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 (Public Law 88–379 as amended). Partial support was also provided by Experiment Station Project No. 344, Paper No. 1060, Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

References

[1] Arrow, K. J. Aspects of the Theory of Risk Bearing, Helsinki: Yrjo Johnssonin Saatio, 1965.Google Scholar
[2] Day, John C. “A Recursive Programming Model for Non-Structural Flood Damage Control,” Water Resources Research, 6:1262–1271, October 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Day, John C. “A Linear Programming Approach to Floodplain Land Use Planning in Urban Areas,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 55:2:165–173, May 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Gaffney, M. “Ground Rent and the Allocation of Land Among Firms,” in Rent Theory, Problems, and Practices, North Central Regional Research Publication, 139:30–49, 1962.Google Scholar
[5] Douglas, James L.. “Economic Analysis of Alternative Flood Control Measures,” Water Resources Research, 3:333–343, 1967.Google Scholar
[6] Lindsay, Bruce E. and Willis, Cleve E.. “Factors Influencing Land Values in the Presence of Suburban Sprawl,” Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council, 3:1:112–124, May 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7] Pratt, J. V. “Risk Aversion in the Small and the Large,” Econometrica, 32:1-2:122–136, 1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8] Smiarowski, , Joseph, , Willis, Cleve E. and Foster, John H.. “An Application of Mathematical Programming to Floodplain Land Use Planning,” A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council at Rhode Island, June 25, 1974.Google Scholar
[9] Willis, Cleve E. and Aklilu, Petros. “Flood Proofing Decisions Under Uncertainty,” Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council, 2:2:235–249, October 1973.Google Scholar