Author： Ganderton Philip
Publisher： Springer Publishing Company
ISSN： 1381-2386
Source： Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Vol.10, Iss.3, 2005-07, pp. : 445-465
Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.
Abstract
Many proponents of disaster mitigation claim that it offers potential benefits in terms of saved lives and property far exceeding its costs. To provide evidence for this, and to justify the use of public funds, agencies involved in mitigation can use benefit–cost analysis (BCA). Such analysis, if well done, offers a testable, defensible means of evaluating and comparing projects, helps decision-makers choose between mitigation projects, and provides a means to assess the way we spend public funds. In this critical overview of the more contentious issues and latest developments in BCA, I emphasize the pragmatic choices that one can make in accordance with good practice in project evaluation.
Related content
Risk analysis, a tool for decision-making
International Journal of Environment and Pollution, Vol. 6, Iss. 4-5, 2009-09 ,pp. :
Access to resources
Recommend
Improving Decision Making about Natural Disaster Mitigation Funding in Australia—A Framework
Resources, Vol. 5, Iss. 3, 2016-09 ,pp. :
Access to resources