Canada-Ontario Flood Damage Reduction Program-Case Studies

Millerd, Frank; Dufournaud, Christian M.; Schaefer, Karl A.

doi:10.4296/cwrj1901017

Cited by 13 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“… Note : Based on Aerts, Botzen, and de Moel (), Aerts et al (), Aubé et al (), Brouwer and van Ek (), de Bruin et al (), de Loe and Wojtanoswski (), Godschalk, Rose, Mittler, Porter, and West (), Jonkman, Brinkhuis, and Kok (), Leblanc and Ouellette (), Millerd et al (), Ouellette et al (), Rose et al (), SEPA (), and Tarig ().…”

Section: Literature Review Approachunclassified

“…This is formally represented in the following change to Equations (2) and (3).

b {(.)}_{t} = b {(FIN, SOC, ENV)}_{t} .

c {(.)}_{t} = c {(FIN, SOC, ENV)}_{t} .

Financial impacts are those that directly correspond to changes in flood damage (Aerts et al, ; Leblanc & Ouellette, ; Ouellette et al, ; Whipple, ) and changes in economic activity (Rose et al, ), for example. Social impacts are broader and correspond to other human impacts from zoning, for example communication activities that increase awareness (Brouwer & van Ek, ), and better governance capabilities (Millerd et al, ). Environmental impacts relate to how the environment changes, for example natural area restoration or protection (Aubé et al, ; Brouwer & van Ek, ; de Bruin et al, ).…”

Section: Flood Risk Zoning Cbamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A more detailed discussion of this approach is found in Kind et al (). This discussion is relevant for zoning since whether impacts are valued equally when they accrue to poor or rich groups can influence the overall desirability of the zoning policy (Leblanc & Ouellette, ; Millerd et al, ).…”

Section: Equity and Social Justice Concernsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of nine suitable documents were included: Whipple (1969), Leblanc and Ouellette (1988), Ouellette, Leblanc, El-Jabi, and Rousselle (1988), Millerd, Dufournaud, and Schaefer (1994), Brouwer and van Ek (2004), Rose et al (2007), Aerts et al (2014), de Bruin, Goosen, van Lerland, andGroeneveld (2014), and Aubé, Hébert, Wilson, Trenholm, and Patriquin (2016). Leblanc and Ouellette (1988), Ouellette et al (1988), Millerd et al (1994), and Rose et al (2007) evaluated known zoning programs: namely Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations across the United States (Rose et al, 2007), and zoning regulations in a few small Canadian communities (the remaining three studies). Aubé et al (2016) conducted a CBA of a potential zoning policy against coastal flooding in a small Canadian community.…”

Section: Literature Review Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, environmental and societal impacts are nonmarket values, which are more difficult to monetize than changes in flood damage and direct government expenditures for implementing the zoning project. Nevertheless, given the importance of nonmarket impacts it is relevant to include such impacts in the overall evaluation (Brouwer & van Ek, ; de Bruin et al, ; Rose et al, ), even if only in a qualitative manner as in Millerd et al (). For instance, Brouwer and van Ek () base their CBA for flood‐zoning in the Netherlands on expert judgment and qualitative or normative scoring in addition to a quantitative CBA.…”

Section: Flood Risk Zoning Cbamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Cost–benefit analysis of flood‐zoning policies: A review of current practice

Hudson

Botzen

2019

WIREs Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One commonly proposed method to limit flood risk is land‐use or zoning policies which regulates construction in high‐risk areas, in order to reduce economic exposure and its vulnerability to flood events. Although such zoning regulations can be effective in limiting trends in flood risk, they also have adverse impacts on society, for instance by limiting local development of areas near the water. In order to judge whether proposed land‐use or zoning policies are a net benefit to society, they should be accepted or rejected based on a societal cost–benefit analysis (CBA). However, conducting a CBA of zoning regulation is complex and comprehensive guidelines of how to do such an analysis are lacking. We offer guidelines for good practice. In order to assess the costs and benefits of zoning as a climate change adaption strategy, they should be assessed at a societal level in order to account for public good features of flood risk reduction strategies, and because costs in one area can be benefits in another region. We propose a multistep process: first, determine the spatial extent of the zoning policy and how interconnected the zoned area is to other locations; second, conduct a CBA using monetary costs and benefits estimated from an integrated hydro‐economic model to investigate if total benefits exceed total costs; third, conduct a sensitivity analysis regarding the main assumptions; fourth, conduct a multicriteria analysis (MCA) of the normative outcomes of a zoning policy. A desirable policy is preferred in both the CBA and MCA. This article is categorized under: Engineering Water > Planning Water Human Water > Value of Water Science of Water > Water Extremes Human Water > Methods

show abstract