C H A P T E R 1 4 Risk Management and Worker Protec ti.docx

C H A P T E R 1 4 Risk Management and Worker Protec
tion 499
H R E X P E R I E N T I A L P R O B L E M S O L V I N G
Due to an increase in recent employee layoffs
because of economic conditions and the increased
risk of workplace violence, as well as an increase
in domestic restraining orders that several employ-
ees have recently obtained against former spouses,
company management has decided it is time to
take a proactive position and develop a workplace
violence action plan. There are many factors to
consider, as your company has three locations
and more than 500 employees. For information to
assist you in identifying workplace violence catego-
ries and prevention strategies, visit the website at
www.fbi.gov/publications/violence.pdf.
1. Which workplace violence categories are of
most concern to your company?
2. What steps and provisions do you need to
include in your workplace violence action plan?
Policing the workplace used to mean reminding
employees about personal phone calls and making
sure that paper clips did not disappear. But with
the computer revolution at work that began in the
1990s, checking on employee behavior at work
became considerably more technical. The threats

to data security, not to mention other threats for
potential lawsuits (e.g., sexual harassment), are now
more complex as well. New federal laws pertaining
to financial and medical records have put increased
pressure on companies to protect their data. But
auditing user privacy cannot be done without input
and buy-in from HR, notes a senior consultant with
an IT security firm in Massachusetts.
Whether the concern is in appropriate Internet
usage or transferring files outside the company, HR
may be the first to learn of a problem. Although the
possibility of outside attacks on the computer net-
work is a real problem, the threat of internal security
breaches is even greater. The growing insider prob-
lem and the sheer volume of electronic messages
coming into and out of a company (a large company
easily processes one million e-mails per day) present
HR with a challenge on data security policy devel-
opment, implementation, and enforcement.
HR may be asked to “identify personnel at
risk” who might require more stringent watch-
ing, such as people who are sending out résumés.
In many cases, people leaving organizations take
advantage of the opportunity to take intellectual
property with them. Security software identify-
ing employee behaviors will always require HR
involvement. Policy violations, banned sites, and
stealing identity data are examples. Companies
look very bad when sensitive customer or employee
data are stolen or leaked to the public. Employees
can easily resent the security measures and see the
security as “Big Brother” watching. However, the
growth of identity theft and spyware means that

more employees have been personally affected by
data security and are more likely to recognize the
need for their employers’ data security efforts.
At Spherion, HR publishes a “computer and
telecom resources policy” that specifies appropri-
ate usage and a code of conduct. Employees must
read and sign the policy. The company also has an
IT Risk Team with members from HR, account-
ing, internal auditing, and other departments.
There are, of course, attempts at a purely tech-
nical solution to the problem. But it is clear that
HR must have a role in balancing employee pri-
vacy with company risk management. A simple act,
such as a bank’s loan officer burning credit infor-
mation to a CD and selling the data to another
bank, can undo all the technical protections. The
human side—developing a policy, communicating
it, helping people understand why it is needed, and
applying it fairly—is the big piece for HR.56
Q U E S T I O N S
1. How would you communicate a data security
policy that required software checking of
employees’ emails?
2. What elements should a data security policy
for a bank include?
3. Employee data theft most frequently occurs
with new employees or when an employee has
given notice and is leaving. How would you
deal with these two very different issues?

Data Security
C A S E
5315X_14_ch14_p465-501.indd 4995315X_14_ch14_p465-
501.indd 499 26/06/10 6:11 PM26/06/10 6:11 PM
A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the New Orleans Flood
Protection System
Stéphane Hallegatte
To cite this version:
Stéphane Hallegatte. A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the New
Orleans Flood Protection System.
AEI-Brookings Joint Center. Regulatory Analysis, 2006, pp.06-
02. <hal-00164628>
HAL Id: hal-00164628
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00164628
Submitted on 22 Jul 2007
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00164628
1
A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the New Orleans Flood Protection
System
Stéphane Hallegatte1
Center for Environmental Sciences and Policy, Stanford
University,
and
Centre International de Recherche sur l'Environnement et le
Développement, Ecole Nationale des
Ponts-et-Chaussées
Abstract
In the early stages of rebuilding New Orleans, a decision has to
be made on the

level of flood protection the city should implement. Such
decisions are usually
based on cost-benefit analyses. But in such an analysis, the
results are contingent on
a number of underlying assumptions and varying these
assumptions can lead to
different recommendations. Indeed, though a standard first-
order analysis rules out
category 5 hurricane protection, taking into account climate
change and other
human-related disruptions of environment, second-order impacts
of large-scale
disasters, possible changes in the discount rate, risk aversion
and damage
heterogeneity may make such a hurricane protection a rational
investment, even if
countervailing risks and moral hazard issues are included in the
analysis. These
results stress the high sensitivity of the CBA recommendation to
several uncertain
assumptions, highlight the importance of second-order costs and
damage
heterogeneity in welfare losses, and show how climate change
creates an additional
layer of uncertainty in infrastructure design that increases the
probability of either
under-adaptation (and increased risk) or over-adaptation (and
sunk costs).
Introduction
Six months after the deadly landfall of the category 4 Hurricane
Katrina on New Orleans, there is
an active debate about the reconstruction of New Orleans and

the design of its future flood
protection system (e.g., Schwartz, 2005; Bohannon and
Enserink, 2005). Although the
reconstruction of New Orleans has been questioned by House
Speaker Dennis Hastert and is still a
debated question (Hahn, 2005), this paper will assume that it
will be eventually carried out and
focus on an adjacent question, namely the necessity of making
the city flood protection system able
to cope with category 5 hurricanes.
1 corresponding author ([email protected]). I am grateful to
Philippe Ambrosi, Hans-Martin Füssel, François
Gusdorf, Minh Ha-Duong, Robert Hahn, Mike Jackson, Mike
Mastrandrea and Jonathan Wiener for very useful
suggestions and advices on the form and content of this article.
This research was supported by the European
Commission's Project No. 12975 (NEST) “Extreme events:
Causes and consequences (E2-C2)”.
2
The design of natural disaster protection systems is based on
cost-benefit analyses (CBA; see for
instance Arrow et al., 1996), even though other decision-making
frameworks have been proposed
(e.g., the precautionary principle). In a CBA framework, New
Orleans would only benefit from a
flood protection system able to cope with category 5 hurricanes,
compared to a system able to cope

with category 3 or 4 hurricanes, if the additional cost of the
upgraded protection was lower than the
expected benefits from reduced flood damages. This is not
certain to be the case, as surprising as
this might appear given Katrina's devastating impact, and this
article will show how two
evaluations can reach opposite conclusions.
To do so, we will first carry out a simple CBA using available
data on the damages caused by
Katrina in New Orleans. As we will see, this first CBA clearly
rules out any category 5 protection
system. Then, we will show how less optimistic assumptions on
anthropogenic perturbations of
environment and considering additional processes, namely
second-order impacts, discount rate
choice, countervailing risks and side-effects, risk aversion, and
damage heterogeneity, can change
the terms of the analysis and potentially justify the
implementation of a category 5 system.
A first Cost-Benefit Assessment
To carry out a CBA of a category 5 flood protection system in
New Orleans, one needs to assess
the cost, C, of such a system, and its expected benefits, B. On
the one hand, assessing the cost, C, of
an upgrade of the protection system is not that complicated,
even though it requires a precise
definition of the system and an assessment of its construction
and maintenance costs. In the very
early stages of rebuilding, state officials evaluate the cost of
category 5 protection at about $32
billion, compared with a $1 billion cost to restore the initial
category 3 protection (Schwartz, 2005).
Precise information on the cost of category 4 protection is

unavailable but we will assume that it
would be about $5 billion, making the additional cost of a
category 5 protection $27 billion.
On the other hand, assessing expected benefits is much more
problematic, as one needs to take into
account benefits of various natures (avoidance of casualties,
injuries, economic losses,
psychological trauma, etc...) impacting different groups of
people and possibly lying far in the
future. This aggregation problem has been largely discussed;
see, for instance, Adler (2005) or
Schneider et al. (2000) for aggregation issues between different
categories of impacts and Portney
and Weyant (1999) for issues concerning inter-temporal
aggregation.
Regardless of these important problems, benefits can be defined
as the net present value of the
expected amount of damages avoided by the protection system
upgrade. These benefits can,
therefore, be calculated as the discounted sum, for each year
from now through the lifetime of the
protection system, of the annual probability that a category 5
hurricane hits New Orleans multiplied
by the difference between the damages of such a hurricane on a
category 4 versus a category 5
protection system. This difference is discounted to take into
account the fact that the same benefit is
valuated at a higher value when it occurs in the near future
rather than further in the future.

3
The values of three parameters are thus necessary: the discount
rate (δ), the probability of
occurrence (p), and the amount of avoidable damages in the
year n (dn). From them, expected
benefits, B, are easy to calculate2:
(1)
Assuming that damages are growing over time at the same rate
as economic growth, g, which is a
conservative hypothesis considering the current growth of
economic losses due to natural disasters
(Mills et al., 2004; Munich Re, 2005), expected benefits read:
(2)
where d0 is the amount of damages a flooding of New Orleans
would cause today. If the cost, C, of
the flood protection system is lower than the expected benefits,
B, then the system should be
implemented. In spite of the difficulties already mentioned, a
rough assessment of B can be made
based on current information. From historical experience (i.e.
by observing hurricane frequencies
over the last century), one can evaluate the annual probability
that a category 5 hurricane hits New
Orleans at about p = 1/500 (H. Saffir, quoted in Schwartz,
2005).

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which carries
out CBA of Federal regulations in
the U.S., uses two different discount rates to analyze policy
decisions (OMB, 2003; see Appendix
D, OMB Circular A-4). These two discount rates are used to
assess the robustness of findings to the
choice of discount rate and to capture two approaches to CBA.
First, the discount rate can be
calculated as the opportunity cost of capital, especially when
strong capital reallocation is involved,
yielding a value of 7 percent in the U.S. Second, especially
when the project affects consumption
patterns (e.g., fiscal changes), the discount rate can be
calculated as the “social rate of pure
preference” used by the average American saver in his saving
decisions, yielding a value of 3
percent. Because the New Orleans flood protection system deals
with the optimal allocation of
capital, the use of the first value of 7 percent can appear a priori
more appropriate. Note also that,
according to the Ramsey growth discount rule (Ramsey, 1928),
the discount rate can be evaluated
by the relationship δ = ρ + α g, where ρ describes value
judgments about time preferences and is
referred to as the rate of pure preference for the present; α is the
elasticity of the marginal utility
and describes value judgments about the distribution of wealth;
and g is the growth rate in the
considered economy. The 7 percent discount rate used by the
U.S. agency is consistent with a rate
of pure preference for the present of ρ = 4 percent and an
elasticity of the marginal utility of α = 1,
with an expected economic growth of the U.S. economy of g = 3
percent. The 3 percent discount
rate derived from the social rate of pure preference is consistent

with a less optimistic prediction of
economic growth, at 2 percent, and a pure preference for the
present of ρ = 1. It is noteworthy that
if damages are growing at the same rate as the economy, then a
null pure preference for the present
(ρ = 0) would imply that the flood protection would yield
infinite benefit, provided that this flood
protection system has a quasi-infinite lifetime.
2 It is assumed that protection systems have an infinite lifetime,
after having checked that results were only weakly
sensitive to the protection system lifetime, chosen in a
reasonable range, for the selected values of the parameters.
Indeed, as we will see, if δ ≈ g, where g is the economic growth
rate (see below), the system lifetime becomes an
important variable.
4
Insurance and reinsurance companies (e.g., Munich Re, Swiss
Re, etc...) and disaster modeling
companies (e.g., RMS, EQECAT, etc...) estimate the direct
damages due to any hurricane or flood,
and their results are widely used as proxies for the overall
economic cost of disasters. These
companies estimate the cost of the New Orleans flooding around
$20 billion (RMS, 2005)3. Taking
into account casualties (about 1,000 people died in the flooding)
raises the difficult issue of
attributing a cost to a loss of life. Because the expression “value
of the human life” problematically
suggests a market in which one could buy or sell human lives, it

is preferable to use the expression
“amount the public is willing to devote to reducing risk in order
to save an additional life”, which
is a much more acceptable wording. Even though the value
depends on the type of risk and the
probability of occurrence of the considered event, most
estimates lie between $1 million and $10
million in the U.S. We will use here the commonly-used
estimation of the U.S. EPA (1997) of $5
million. Given this figure, the public would be willing to pay $5
billion to avoid the human toll of
the New Orleans flood. An additional $5 billion will be added
to take into account the numerous
injuries and trauma. According to these rough estimates, $30
billion seems to be a good
approximation of the New Orleans flood cost4.
Assuming that a category 4 protection system does not reduce
the damages yielded by category 5
hurricanes, which is likely since there is little difference
between no levees and broken levees, the
expected present benefit of a category 5 flood protection system
in New Orleans can be calculated
with Eq.(2) at $1.5 billion with a 7-percent discount rate and $6
billion with a 3-percent discount
rate. Both are one order of magnitude lower than the building
cost of such a system. This rough
estimate clearly rules out an upgrade of the protection system to
make it able to cope with category
5 storms. It might be difficult to believe that the risk of a
repetition of the devastation caused by the
category 4 hurricane Katrina is not enough to justify the
implementation of the best possible
protection system. However, our CBA suggests that it is more
rational from an economic point-of-
view to live the Katrina nightmare again in a more or less

remote future5.
This estimate is, however, not very solidly grounded, as it does
not take into account important
processes, whose impacts could be significant. In line with
OMB requirements when uncertainty is
large and economic implications are in excess of $1 billion
(OMB, 2003), we will now review the
parameters6 of the CBA, and propose alternative estimates. We
will not, however, attribute
subjective probabilities to the various hypotheses that will be
proposed and conduct a full
probabilistic analysis, as can be found, for instance, in
Mastrandrea and Schneider (2005) for the
climate change issue. Indeed, current knowledge about natural
disaster consequences seems still
insufficient to assess these probabilities with any confidence,
and the following sections will show
how much research is still necessary.
3 Note that the losses due to the New Orleans flooding were
only a fraction of the total cost of the Katrina landfall.
4 In case of a repetition of the Katrina’s scenario, a better
evacuation would probably be able to avoid a large part of the
human losses and reduce this amount of damages. It has to be
mentioned, however, (i) that Katrina’s track forecasts
have been very good and allowed for anticipated decisions
before landfall, which is not always possible, and (ii) that an
evacuation is always subject to organisational problems and
unexpected practical difficulties, making the human part of
the damages highly variable and uncertain.
5 An annual probability of 1/500 means that there is a 20
percent chance of having a category 5 hurricane hitting New
Orleans in the next 100 years, and a 33 percent chance in the

next 200 years.
6 Among the necessary assumptions in the CBA, it is often
useful to distinguish between the political choices that must
arise from a political process (e.g., discounting scheme), and
the scientific uncertainties that can be – at least
theoretically – solved through additional research (e.g., future
probability of occurrence).
5
Probability of occurrence
In the first CBA, historical evidence was used to assess the
probability of occurrence of a category
5 hurricane landfall on New Orleans. This assessment cannot,
however, be considered as robust in
this CBA. Indeed, a flood protection system has a very long
lifetime. Such a long lifetime arises, of
course, from the long lifetime of infrastructures (dams, bridges,
gates). But, above all, it comes
from the fact that the flood protection system will shape the city
development over an even longer
time horizon. The decisions that will be taken in the next years
will, therefore, constrain the flood
protection of New Orleans for at least the next century.
During this century, climate is likely to change significantly in
response to human emissions of
greenhouse gases (GHG), with consequences for hurricane
damages. We already detect a trend in

hurricane destructiveness: Webster et al. (2005) observed that
hurricanes in the strongest categories
(4 and 5) have almost doubled in number and in proportion in
30 years; over the last 75 years,
Emanuel (2005a) detected in the North Atlantic and western
North Pacific basins a strong increase
in the power-dissipation index (PDI), which is a proxy of the
destructiveness of hurricanes. The
debate on the significance and persistence of these trends,
however, has yet to be solved (e.g.,
Landsea, 2005; Emanuel, 2005b)
Regardless, experts expect hurricane maximum intensities to
increase as temperatures rise during
the 21st century. Global climate-model experiments have
suggested an increase in the relative risk
of occurrence of category-5 hurricanes under high-GHG
conditions (Knutson and Tuleya, 2004). A
tropical-cyclone model run by Emanuel (2006) found that a 10
percent increase in potential
intensity, corresponding approximately to a 2°C-warming, could
lead to a 65 percent increase in
PDI. Even though uncertainty remains in the amplitude of the
change (Trenberth, 2005; Pielke et
al., 2005), it is noteworthy that any change in the mean
characteristics of hurricanes might easily
translate into large changes in the probability of the most
powerful hurricanes. As an illustration, if
the distribution shape of the hurricane PDI were unchanged, the
65-percent increase in the mean
PDI found by Emanuel (2006) would multiply by 3.8 the
frequency of the 1-percent most powerful
hurricanes (see Appendix A).
Also, sea level rise and other human-induced disruptions to the
Mississippi River delta (e.g.,

sediment deposition reduction) will worsen the floods
associated with any hurricane falling on this
low-lying area (Burkett et al., 2003). Thus, the probability of
floods currently caused only by
category 5 hurricanes might increase, as less powerful
hurricanes could also produce such
devastating floods.
To take into account these two phenomena in the CBA, they will
be summarized through the
assumption that the annual probability of floods currently
caused by category 5 hurricanes will be
multiplied by 3.8, to reach p=1/130 years. This higher
probability alone would make expected
benefits rise from $1.5 to $5.7 billion or from $6 to $22.8
billion, depending on the discount rate.
These results suggest that climate change may have an
important impact on long-term hurricane
risk, even though changes in population and capital at risk will
obviously be the main driver of
vulnerability during the next decades. Additionally, the large
uncertainty of the future probability
of occurrence highlights one mechanism that have been
disregarded in the climate change impact
literature so far, but through which climate change might be
responsible for significant economic
damages in the future: climate change increases the uncertainty
on parameters that impact the
6
design of long-term infrastructure, making them more likely to
be ill-suited in the future climate. In

the present case, the risk is either to face a series of avoidable
disasters in New Orleans, if the
probability of occurrence turns out to be much larger than
predicted when the protection system is
designed, or to bear the sunk costs of an expensive protection
system based on an overestimated
probability of occurrence.
Avoidable damages
Another major difficulty remains in the assessment of the actual
damages that could be avoided
through an upgrade of the protection system. Assuming that
New Orleans will be reconstructed and
that all displaced households will return to their original city
(we will address this issue later in the
paper), the damages from the Katrina landfall can be used as a
proxy for the damages a future flood
may cause. As mentioned earlier, however, several authors
suggest that the direct costs, evaluated
by insurance companies, may be poor proxies of overall costs,
especially concerning large-scale
events (Tierney, 1995; Lindell and Prater, 2003; Hallegatte and
Hourcade, 2006). Indeed, direct
cost can be amplified (i) by spatial or sectoral propagation into
the rest of the economic system
over the short-term (e.g., through disruptions of lifeline
services7) and over the longer term (e.g.,
sectoral inflation due to demand surge, energy costs, insurance
company bankruptcy, larger public
deficit, or housing prices that have second-order consequences
on consumption); (ii) by responses
to the shock (e.g., loss of confidence, change in expectations,
indirect consequences of inequality
deepening); (iii) by financial constraints impairing
reconstruction (e.g., low-income families cannot

finance rapidly the reconstruction of their home); and (iv) by
technical constraints slowing down
reconstruction (e.g., availability of skilled workers, difficulties
in equipment and material
transportation, difficulties in accommodating workers). To
measure the impact of these effects,
Hallegatte and Hourcade (2006) introduced in their simple
economic model a parameter measuring
the ability of the economy to fund and carry out reconstruction,
and derived the Disaster Economic
Amplification Ratio (DEAR), which measures the ratio between
the overall economic cost and the
direct loss due to a disaster. While this ratio is less than one for
small-scale disasters, DEAR is
found, using a simple model, to increase dramatically for large-
scale disasters like the New Orleans
floods. This increase arises mainly from the addition to the
capital replacement cost of the
production losses during the reconstruction phase. For example,
if a $1 million plant was destroyed
and immediately rebuilt, the loss would be $1 million; if its
reconstruction is delayed by one year,
the total loss is the sum of the replacement cost and of the value
of one year of production. For
housing, the destruction of a house with a one-year delay in
reconstruction has a total cost equal to
the replacement cost of the house plus the value attributed to
inhabiting the house during one year.
The value of such production losses, in a broad sense, can be
very high in some sectors, especially
when basic needs are at stake (housing, health, employment,
etc.).
A couple of months after the Katrina landfall, initial analyses of
the disaster aftermath
unfortunately confirm this intuition; because the “systemic

functioning” of the whole region is now
impaired (both economically and technically), the
reconstruction is dramatically slowed down and
the total cost of the event will be much larger than its direct
cost. In recent publications, the RMS
research team (RMS, 2005) and the RAND Corporation
(McCarthy at al., 2006) highlight the
existence of numerous “loss amplification” effects: demand
surge (e.g., a 13-percent increase in
cement prices between 2005 and 2008 is forecasted); longer
delay in reconstruction due to technical
7 For instance, Tierney (1995) finds that data on the
consequences of the 1993 Midwest floods and the 1994
Northridge
earthquake suggest that “business properties may escape direct
damage and yet suffer extensive disruption as a result
of lifeline service outages”. These short-term costs, however,
are most of the time included in the assessments by the
insurance industry through “business interruption” costs.
7
constraints; financial constraints in reconstruction due to
insufficient flood-insurance policy
coverage. These conclusions probably understate these effects,
as they focus primarily on direct
costs without considering most of the second-order costs, which
are not insured but are supported
by the overall community (e.g., the impact of Katrina on
tourism in New Orleans and its vicinity
during future hurricane seasons, which is still unknown but

might turn out to be significant; or the
cost of taking in thousands of displaced people in other cities).
Social costs of large-scale disaster also involve other
dimensions than direct economic losses and
casualties, including psychological factors or political and
social destabilization (see a review in
Lindell and Prater, 2003). For instance, confidence in the ability
of public services to carry out
disaster relief in an efficient manner may have been undermined
by this event, investors may be
reluctant to invest large amounts of money into new businesses
in the affected area, and tourists
may change their favorite vacation destination if they feel
endangered in New Orleans. Of course, a
comparable event occurring in the next decades would strongly
amplify all these reactions, possibly
leading to a withdrawal from New Orleans, the cost of which is
difficult to assess8. Also, natural
disasters have been found in the past to cause strong political
and social unrest when they amplified
pre-existing tensions (e.g., hurricane Bohla in 1970, which
killed almost 300,000 persons in
Pakistan without provoking an effective mobilization of the
central government to provide relief,
worsened social tensions that led to the creation of Bangladesh
in 1971). Even though the social
and political destabilization arising from a hurricane in the U.S.
cannot but remain limited (Lindell
and Prater, 2003), the consequences of a near repetition of a
Katrina-like event on the social and
economic climate of Louisiana are difficult to predict9. The
cost of two Katrinas would be much
larger than twice the cost of one Katrina.
Moreover, even if long-term consequences remain limited when

considering a single event, the
consequences of a distribution of events on regional economic
growth can be significant
(Hallegatte and Hourcade, 2006). Indeed, as already stated by
Benson and Clay (2004), poor
regions or countries affected by repeated natural disasters and
suffering from a weak ability to
conduct reconstruction may prove unable to maintain the
infrastructures necessary for economic
development, leading to the creation of “poverty traps.” As
examples of this phenomenon, we cite
Guatemala, whose impressive series of weather catastrophes
between 1997 and 2001 prevented any
development. Similarly, in Honduras, the single hurricane
Michele in 2001 "put the country's
economic development back 20 years" (Honduran Prime
Minister, quoted in IFRCRCS, 2002).
Again, it is possible that disasters have, at least in some
regions, long-run consequences that are
neglected in first-order estimates, through changes in potential
economic growth.
For all these reasons, and given the large vulnerability of New
Orleans and its vicinity (important
economic activity in sensitive sectors like tourism,
transportation or energy production; low
reconstruction capacity due to a large proportion of low-income
population, etc.), the extent of the
damages (80% of the city under water), and the difficulties
currently met in the reconstruction
process, a conservative estimate of the actual overall cost of the
New Orleans floods is at least 50%
8 In particular, a high value might be attributed to the historical
and cultural content of New Orleans. In other terms,
people can decide to pay an additional price to keep living in

New Orleans instead of being relocated. The choice of
this value, however, must involve a political process which is
beyond the scope of this article.
9 It may also be necessary to take into account the position of
the ruling government. Indeed, the government is likely
to be held directly responsible for a repetition of such an event
in the same location, that would probably be considered
more unacceptable than a comparable disaster in another place
(e.g., Sacramento, CA, that runs the same kind of risks
than New Orleans). This private interest may motivate an over-
protection against events that have already occurred,
justifying the use of economic analysis to assess risk
management projects and avoid under-optimal risk management
strategies.
8
larger than the insurers’ approximation based on direct losses
only, to reach $45 billion. It is
difficult to assess the cost of a repetition of the Katrina
scenario. Of course, the closer from the first
hit the larger the additional cost. As a best guess hypothesis, we
will assume the cost of a second hit
to be, on average over the life-time of the protection system,
25% larger than the first hit, i.e.
amounting to $56 billion. Using the new values of event
probability (p=1/130) and potential
damages (d0=$56 billion), the expected benefit of an upgraded
protection system would be $10.7
billion with a 7 percent discount rate and $42.4 billion with a 3
percent discount rate.
The resettlement issue

We assumed in the previous section that New Orleans will be
rebuilt with the same structure it had
before Katrina and that all previous inhabitants of New Orleans
will return to the city, even if no
improvement of the flood protection system is undertaken. This
assumption is at odds with what is
observed and what is predicted in the coming years. For
instance, McCarthy et al. (2006) estimate
that the New Orleans population will be down to 272,000 in
2008, from 485,000 in 2000. If this
new population is maintained, the costs of a new flood would of
course be largely reduced
compared with the 2005 one, making our assessment of
avoidable damages overestimated. But it
must be remembered that the flood protection system, the design
of which is currently being
discussed, will protect New Orleans for at least one century.
The pertinent variable is thus the
population over the long term, not over the next decade. And
the low repopulation rate predicted by
McCarthy et al. (2006) is mainly explained by the slow
reconstruction pace due to short term
constraints. It provides, therefore, no estimate of the long-term
repopulation of the city.
To assess the long-term repopulation, we assume that, before
Katrina, the risk of hurricane was
perfectly known and that the New Orleans inhabitants had a
rational behavior. We neglect here the
potentially important role of social networks (see McCarthy et
al., 2006). Within this framework,
the large population of New Orleans before the storm can only
be explained by comparative
advantages of the city’s location in some sectors (e.g., tourism,
shipping) and by the households’

willingness-to-pay (WTP) to live there, because of
environmental amenities. Both should have
more than compensated the well-known hurricane and flood
risk, even in absence of improved
flood protection system. If these comparative advantages and
this WTP have not been changed by
Katrina, and if basic services, infrastructures and social
networks can be restored, these
assumptions mean that the New Orleans population will
eventually return to its pre-Katrina level,
even in absence of improved flood protection. They also suggest
that the currently observed
population reduction is more related to financial and technical
constraints than to voluntary choices.
These assumptions, even though questionable, can explain the
pre-storm New Orleans and allow us
to separate the design of the flood protection system from the
reconstruction issue and to justify the
use of the 2005 flood data to estimate the cost of a future flood.
Countervailing risks, side-effects and reduced
Unfortunately, it is also necessary to take into account the
possible side-effects implied by the
implementation of a large-scale protection system. These side-
effects can yield ancillary benefits
like infrastructure improvement, as mentioned by Allenby and
Fink (2005), or create or increase
other risks, referred to as countervailing risks10 by Wiener
(1998), who calls for a broader
accounting of them in risk management.
10 Examples of such countervailing risks in flood management
are provided by Glenn et al. (1996) or Christensen

(1997).
9
One cannot assess a flood protection system without taking into
account moral hazard and equity
issues. A flood protection system funded through nationwide
taxes, like a uniform insurance
premium, can constitute an incentive for people to settle in at-
risk areas, as they do not pay for the
risk their location choice creates. Indeed, even if they prefer to
live in New Orleans rather than
anywhere else, it is likely that less people will resettle in New
Orleans if they think the Katrina
catastrophe can happen again than if a flood protection system
makes the probability of such an
event negligible. This mechanism is potentially significant,
since the large increases in population
and investments in hurricane-prone regions are responsible for
most of the explosive trend in
hurricane damages observed over the last decades (Mills et al.,
2004; Munich Re, 2005; Pielke et
al., 2005). It should be noticed, however, that the urbanization
of vulnerable areas around New
Orleans in the past few decades does not seem to have been
driven mainly by an over-protection
against hurricane floods, but rather by the trade-off carried out
by low-income households, who
have high rates of preference for the present and poor access to
information, between long-term
flooding risks and immediate lower housing prices.
These side-effects, however, create a paradox. We would expect
an increase in the system benefits

from the fact that the protection system would allow a larger
number of households to resettle in
New Orleans, where they prefer to live. It is not the case.
Instead, it reduces the benefits, by
lowering the number of persons at-risk if the protection system
is not built. This paradox arises
from the fact that, again, we do not take into account the
comparative advantages of New Orleans
and the welfare gain or loss (or WTP) of households who would
like to live in this city if they were
protected from floods. This paradox suggests that a CBA
analysis of the flood protection system
taking into account countervailing risks cannot be carried out in
a rigorous manner independently
of a modeling of individual location choices. Such a modeling,
however, is made very difficult by
the uncertainty of household WTP, and we will have to rely on
other approximations to take into
account countervailing risks in our analysis.
The importance of these side-effects will be heavily dependent
on the design and practical
implementation of the protection system. In particular, huge
negative consequences would certainly
result from the implementation of an ambitious flood protection
system that would not be followed
by a careful long-term maintenance. In this worst case scenario,
the existence of the protection
system would raise investment and population in the so-called
protected area, which would not be
protected any more after a few decades of negligence, making
vulnerability even larger than if no
protection was implemented in the first place. As a
consequence, the implementation of a
protection system must be considered as a long-term
commitment.

Also, avoiding negative outcomes from the future flood
protection system requires careful design
and implementation, in order to protect already urbanized areas
without steering additional
urbanization toward non-protected flood-prone locations. In this
respect, the future flood protection
system in New Orleans is certainly not only a system of dams,
bridges, and gates. It should also
include an important set of new regulations for future urban
developments. A wisely designed flood
protection system should protect selected areas, with dams and
levees, and ensure, through land-use
regulations, that investments are not attracted to non-protected
areas. Hopefully, increased
experience with flood management and the high visibility of the
project will foster a flood
protection plan that limits the negative effects and promotes
positive ones, making the overall
consequences of these side-effects positive or, if it reveals
impossible, negligible compared with
direct costs and benefits.
To be conservative, however, we will take into account the fact
that a flood protection system could
increase the population and capital at risk compared with an
optimal situation. To do so, we will
10
assume that, if no protection system is implemented, the
potential damages growth rate will be
lower than nationwide economic growth, by an amount ∆g=0.5
percent, because of the influence of

hurricane risks on housing and investment location choices11.
We will neglect the fact that, if the
protection system is not implemented, there is a loss of welfare
for households who would move to
New Orleans if the city was protected from flood but who do
not move because of the absence of
such a protection.
It means that Eq.(2) is changed into:
(3)
With this new equation, the expected benefit of an upgraded
protection system would be $9.5
billion with a 7-percent discount rate and $28.4 with a 3-percent
discount rate. With a project cost
of $27 billion, the decision would, therefore, be dependent on
the discount rate, making it necessary
to discuss its value in more detail.
Choice of the discount rate
As already mentioned, the CBA of a flood protection system has
to deal with very long time
horizons, making the value of the discount rate controversial.
Indeed, there are intense debates
(Portney and Weyant, 1999) about the discount rate that should
be used for environmental or long-
term issues that involve intergenerational issues. When
intergenerational equity is strongly
involved, OMB suggests that discount rates between 1 and 3
percent are appropriate, since welfare
of next generations should not be discounted and only the fact
that they are likely to enjoy higher

consumption levels should be taken into account. Other
governments (e.g., U.K.) favor a
decreasing discount rate over time, justified by the uncertainty
over future economic situations (The
Green Book, U.K. Treasury, 2003; Oxera, 2002).
Another approach is to calculate the discount rate that would
make equal costs and benefits and
assess its relevance. Using our parameters (probability of
occurrence p=1/130 years and potential
damages of $56 billion, rising at a growth rate 0.5 percent lower
than economic growth), the
benefits of the protection system are found equal to its cost if
the pure preference for the present is
lower than ρ0 = 1.1 percent. With an expected growth rate of 2
or 3 percent, it would correspond to
a discount rate of 3.1 or 4.1 percent, respectively. Since these
discount rates are both greater than
the largest bound of the OMB’s discount rate range for projects
involving intergenerational equity
issues (3 percent), the last set of hypotheses justifies the
implementation of the $27-billion flood
protection system.
Risk aversion and damage heterogeneity
A society that would use the previous method to assess a
protection system is called risk-neutral. A
risk-neutral agent is indifferent to risk, i.e. it does not see any
difference between losing $1 with
certainty and having a 10% chance of losing $10, because the
expected loss is the same in both
cases. Theoretically, such an agent would never pay for
insurance. Regarding protection against
large-scale floods, however, there are good reasons to justify
risk-averse behavior: people might

11 In other terms, the existence of the protection system is
assumed to increase economic growth in the protected area
by 0.5 percent per year, making it equal to the nationwide
economic growth.
11
indeed prefer to pay an additional amount of money (a risk
premium) to avoid the risk of costly and
deadly floods.
To incorporate risk aversion, we change our assessment
framework to use a utility function that
measures the welfare gain or loss that is associated with any
financial gain or loss. An utility
function with risk aversion assumes that the increase in utility
due to a $1 gain is smaller – in
absolute value – than the decrease in utility due to a $1 loss. As
a consequence, the risk of gaining
or losing $1 with equal probability lowers the expected utility
and is, therefore, equivalent to a
certain financial loss, which is referred to as the risk premium
or the equivalent-certain outcome.
However, if we assume that the damages due to a hurricane
landfall are perfectly shared among the
whole population of the U.S., the damage per capita is small (a
few hundred U.S.$ per capita). In
such a situation, the Arrow-Lind (1970) theorem demonstrates
formally why risk-aversion can be
neglected, supporting the choice of the states that consider self-
insurance as a basic principle (e.g.,

France). Indeed, using an utility function with a constant
relative risk aversion of one, as suggested
in Arrow (1971) for households in developed countries, the
risk-premium amounts only to 0.2% of
the damages, i.e. $120 million (see appendix B).
The picture is different, however, if a substantial part of the
damages impacts only by a small
fraction of the population. Indeed, when the utility function is
not linear, the utility derived from
the consumption of $1 becomes lower as consumption increases.
This effect represents the fact that
rich people do not gain as much from the consumption of $1 as
poor people do. But, it also means
that it is not equivalent for a group of 10 people to lose $1 each
or to know that one of them will
lose $10.
The consequences of these factors on the CBA analysis of a
hurricane landfall can be very
significant. To assess them, we consider a hurricane landfall on
New Orleans, which generates $56
billion of damages, 50 percent of which being equally supported
by the whole U.S. population
(through government spending in reconstruction12, increase in
insurance premium and other
propagation effects into the national economy) and 50 percent
being shared only by the affected
population, which represents 0.4% of the total population, i.e.
one million people. In this case,
individual losses become significant (as large as 90% of annual
consumption for the affected
population) and risk aversion appears far from negligible. The
loss of utility due to such an event is
found to be equivalent to the loss of utility of a hurricane that
would generate $69 billion of

damages shared by the whole U.S. population, without risk-
aversion (see appendix C). This value
corresponds to a risk premium of $13 billion, i.e. 23 percent of
the damages. This figure can even
be considered as underestimated, because (i) low-income
population being more likely to belong to
the affected population (Lindell and Prater, 2003), accounting
for pre-existing income inequalities
would increase utility losses; and (ii) the actual repartition of
damages is even more unequal than
we assumed, as a few people usually suffer from most of the
losses (house, belongings, life
environment, but also friends and relatives). Regardless,
neglecting the damage heterogeneity in the
CBA would lead to a large underestimation of the benefits from
an improved protection system.
To carry out a CBA in utility terms, we must compare the utility
loss due to the risk of hurricane if
no upgraded protection system is implemented with the utility
loss due to the reduction of
consumption, which is needed to fund the protection system. To
do so, we use the present
equivalent-certain cost of the risk of hurricane (Bc), which is
the equivalent of the expected benefit,
12 Federal spending formally related to the Katrina
reconstruction might even exceed the amount of damages,
because
reconstruction can be used to improve regional infrastructures.
12

B, when utility losses are used instead of monetary costs. Bc is
such that paying, immediately, the
amount Bc to build a protection system would reduce utility by
the same amount than supporting
the risk of hurricane flooding. As a consequence, the protection
system should be built if its cost C
is lower than the present equivalent-certain cost of the risk of
hurricane (Bc). In this case, the
calculation with a pure preference for the present of 1 percent
(see Appendix C) leads to a value Bc
= $35.3 billion, which makes a category 5 hurricane flood
protection system economically efficient.
Conclusion
Building a flood protection system able to cope with a category
5 hurricane in New Orleans is a
huge investment, and it is wise to precisely assess its benefits
before any implementation decision,
as other, less-costly projects might be more efficient to improve
the population’s well-being13. One
must, however, be very careful of the underlying assumptions
used in the benefit assessment.
Indeed, using probabilities derived from historical experience
and direct cost estimates produced by
insurance companies lead to low assessments of benefits and
rule out any additional flood
protection system. Nonetheless, making less optimistic
assumptions about possible anthropogenic
increases in flood probabilities and taking into account
estimates of second-order disaster costs,
public risk-aversion, and damage heterogeneity can reverse the
conclusion of the CBA, even if
countervailing risks and moral hazard issues are accounted for.
These results suggest that a CBA is useful but should

encompass the whole set of possible
assumptions to check its robustness. In the New Orleans case,
the recommendation is highly
sensitive to these assumptions, even if the protection system is
found worth building only for
pessimistic assumptions on climate change.
This analysis also shows that second-order damages and impact
heterogeneity are responsible for a
large increase in welfare losses. Climate change, even though
negligible during the next decades
compared to other drivers, might also be an important factor of
hurricane risk over the long-term.
More generally, climate change creates an additional layer of
uncertainty in infrastructure design
that increases the probability of either under-adaptation (and
increased disaster risk) or over-
adaptation (and sunk costs in protection).
References
Adler, M.D., 2005. Equity Analysis and Natural Hazards Policy,
AEI-Brookings Joint Center for
Regulatory Studies, Related Publication 05-30.
Allenby, B. and J. Fink, 2005. Toward Inherently Secure and
Resilient Societies, Science 309, pp.
1034–1036
Arrow, K.J. and R.C. Lind, 1970. Uncertainty and the
evaluation of public investment decisions,
Amer. Econ. Rev. 60, pp. 364–378
Arrow, K.J.,1971. Essays in the theory of risk-bearing,
Markham Publishing, Chicago.

Arrow, K.J., M.L. Cropper, G.C. Eads, R.W. Hahn, L.B. Lave,
R.G. Noll, P.R. Portney, M. Russel,
R.L. Schmalensee, V.K. Smith, R.N. Stavins, 1996. Benefit-
Cost Analysis in Environmental,
Health, and Safety Regulation, American Enterprise Institute
Books and Monographs
13 This is especially true if improved track forecasts, warning
systems and evacuation plans can avoid human losses at
low costs.
13
Benson, C. and E. Clay , 2004. Understanding the economic and
financial impact of natural
disasters. The International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development. The World Bank,
Washington D.C.
Bohannon, J. and M. Enserink, 2005. Scientists Weigh Options
for Rebuilding New Orleans,
Science 309, pp. 1808–1809
Burkett, V. R., Zilkoski, D. B., and Hart, D. A., 2003. Sea-level
rise and subsidence: implications
for flooding in New Orleans, Louisiana, in Prince, K. R., and
Galloway, D. L., eds., U.S.
Geological Survey Subsidence Interest Group Conference,
Proceeding of the Technical Meeting,
Galveston, Texas, pp. 63–70
Christensen, J., 1997. California floods change thinking on need
to tame rivers, The New-York

Times, February 4, 1997
Emanuel, K, 2005a. Increasing destructiveness of tropical
cyclones over the past 30 years, Nature
436, pp.686–688
Emanuel, K., 2005b. Emanuel replies, Nature 438, E13
Emanuel, K., 2006. Climate and tropical cyclone activity : A
new model downscaling approach, J.
Clim., in press
Glenn, E.P., C. Lee, R. Felger an S. Zengel, 1996. Effects of
water management on the wetlands of
the Colorado River delta, Mexico, Conservation Biology 10 (4),
pp. 1175–1186.
Hallegatte, S. and J.-C. Hourcade, 2005. Why economic growth
matters in assessing climate
change damages: illustration on extreme events, accepted by
Ecological Economics, preprint
available on http://www.centre-
cired.fr/forum/article77.html?lang=en
Hahn, R.W., 2005. The economics of rebuilding cities:
Reflections after Katrina, AEI-Brookings
Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Policy matters 05-24
IFRCRCS, 2002. World disaster report 2002, focusing on
reducing risk. International Federation of
Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
Knutson, T. R. and Tuleya, R. E., 2004. Impact of CO2-Induced
Warming on Simulated Hurricane
Intensity and Precipitation: Sensitivity to the Choice of Climate
Model and Convective

Parameterization, Journal of Climate 17, 3477-3495
Landsea, C.W., 2005. Meteorology: Hurricanes and global
warming. Nature 438, E11-E13
Lecocq, F. and J.C. Hourcade, 2003. Equitable Provision of
Long-Term Public Goods: The Role of
Negotiation Mandates, CIRED Working Paper.
Lindell, M.K. and C. S. Prater, 2003. Assessing Community
Impacts of Natural Disasters, Natural
Hazards Rev. 4, 176-185
14
Mastrandrea, M.D. and S.H. Schneider, 2005. Probabilistic
integrated assessment of “dangerous”
climate change, Science 304, pp.571–575
McCarthy, K., D.J. Peterson, N. Sastry, M. Pollard, 2006. The
Repopulation of New Orleans after
Hurricane Katrina, RAND Gulf States Policy Institute
Mills, E., R.J. Roth and E. Lecomte, 2005. Availability and
Affordability of Insurance Under
Climate Change: A Growing Challenge for the U.S., CERES,
available on http://www.ceres.org
Munich Re, 2005. Annual Review: Natural Catastrophes 2004,
Topic Geo
Office of Management and Budget, 2003. Informing regulatory
decisions: report to Congress on the

costs and benefits of federal regulations and unfunded mandates
on state, local, and tribal entities
OXERA, 2002. A Social Time Preference Rate for Use in Long-
Term Discounting, A report for
ODPM, DFT and DEFRA.
Pielke, R.A. Jr., C. Landea, M. Mayfield, J. Laver and R. Pasch,
2005. Hurricane and Global
Warming, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,
November 2005, pp.1571–1575
Portney, P. R. and Weyant, J.P., 1999. Discounting and
Intergenerational Equity, Resources for the
Future, 202 pp.
Ramsey, F.P., 1928. A mathematical theory of saving, The
Economic Journal 38 (152), p.543–559
RMS, 2005. Hurricane Katrina: Profile of a Super Cat, Lessons
and Implications for Catastrophe
Risk Management, available on www.rms.com
Schneider, S.H., K. Kuntz-Duriseti, and C. Azar, 2000. Costing
non-linearities, surprises and
irreversible events, Pacific and Asian Journal of Energy,
10(1):81-106.
Schwartz, J., 2005. Full flood safety in New Orleans could take
billions and decades, The New-York
Times, November 29, 2005
Tierney K. J., 1995. Impacts of Recent U.S. Disasters On
Businesses: The 1993 Midwest Floods
and the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, Disaster Research Center,
University of Delaware

Trenberth K., 2005. Uncertainty in Hurricanes and Global
Warming, Science 308, pp. 1753–1754
U.K. Treasury, 2003. Green Book, Appraisal and Evaluation in
Central Government, available on
http://greenbook.treasury.gov.uk/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. The Benefits and
Costs of the Clean Air Act: 1970–
1990. 410-R-97-002
Webster, P.J., G. J. Holland, J. A. Curry, H.-R. Chang, 2005.
Changes in Tropical Cyclone
Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment,
Science 309, pp. 1844–1846
Wiener, J. B., 1998. Managing the iatrogenic risks of risk
management, Risk: Health, Safety and
Environment, 9 (39), pp. 40–82
15
Appendix A: The link between mean PDI change and the most
powerful hurricane
probability
Figure 1 shows in blue the current cumulative distribution
function of the hurricane power
dissipation index (PDI), as calculated from the NHC/NOAA
HURDAT database
(www.nhc.noaa.gov) between 1900 and 2004. The horizontal
blue line distinguishes the 1-percent

most powerful hurricanes, i.e., in the current distribution, the
hurricanes with PDI larger than
164 109 m3s-2 (vertical black line).
It has been predicted that the mean value of North Atlantic PDI
could rise, between now and the
end of the century, by 50 percent, according to the predicted
rise in sea surface temperature (SST)
and the observed correlation between SST and PDI (Emanuel,
2005b), or by 65 percent, according
to a hurricane intensity model (Emanuel, 2006).
If climate change increased the mean hurricane PDI by 65
percent through a shift of the distribution
to the right, the shape being unchanged, the new cumulative
distribution function would be the red
line in Fig. 1. With this new distribution, 3.8 percent of the
hurricanes would have a PDI larger than
164 109 m3s-2. It means that the frequency of the 1-percent
most powerful hurricanes in the present
climate would be multiplied by 3.8.
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06

0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
50 100 150 200 250 300
PDI (arbitrary units)
P
ro
ba
bi
lit
y
of
e
xc
ee
di
ng
a
P
D
I t

hr
eh
ol
d
Figure 1: cumulative distribution function of hurricane PDI in
the 1900-2004 climate
(in blue) and in a modified climate in which mean PDI would be
increased by 65 percent, the shape being unchanged (in red).
16
Appendix B: Calculation of the risk-premium
The calculation of the risk-premium is done using the following
utility function, with a constant
relative risk aversion of one (see Arrow, 1971):
(B-1)
where N is the size of the population and c is the consumption
per-capita (about $31,200 in 2005).
Note that we assume here that all citizens have the same
consumption and that this utility function
aggregates all citizens by summing their individual utility
function with the same weight. This

method is usually referred to as “one-man, one-vote”. When
income inequalities are taken into
account, other aggregation rules are possible, reflecting
different moral position with regard to
income distribution within a given generation (Lecocq and
Hourcade, 2003) (e.g., the “one-dollar,
one-vote” aggregation rule, in which weightings are chosen so
that the currently observed income
distribution is considered socially optimal).
We define the risk-neutral damages d0’ by the fact that
supporting with certainty an amount of
2005-equivalent damages pd0’ every year would lower utility by
the same amount than the risk of
having a hurricane that causes an amount d0 of 2005-equivalent
damages with a probability p. Note
that all damages are expressed in 2005-equivalent; actual
damages are supposed to rise according to
economic growth minus ∆g=0.5 percent: dn = d0 (1+g-∆g)n.
The risk-neutral damages d’0 can be calculated by the
equality14:
(B-2)
This equation states that the expected utility from consumption,
every year possibly reduced by
hurricane damages d0(1+g-∆g)n, with d0 = $56 billion, is equal
to the utility from the expected
consumption reduced every year by the probability of

occurrence p multiplied by the risk-neutral
damages d0’, also rising according to economic growth minus
∆g. Note that the rate of pure
preference for the present ρ is used to discount utility, while the
discount rate δ is used to discount
monetary values.
For a disaster causing $56 billion of damages, and using the
hypotheses consistent with a discount
rate of 3 percent, i.e. a growth rate of 2 percent and a pure
preference for the present ρ = 1 percent,
the resolution of Eq.(B-2) gives the value of the risk-neutral
damages d’0 = $56,12 billion,
corresponding to a risk-premium of $120 million.
14 Note that population is supposed to be constant.
17
We now define the present equivalent-certain cost of the risk of
hurricane (Bc) by the equality of (i)
the utility loss due to the risk of hurricane if no upgraded
protection system is implemented and (ii)
the utility loss due to the immediate payment of an amount Bc.
It reads:
(B-3)

The protection system should now be implemented if its
building costs are lower than the present
equivalent-certain cost of the risk of hurricane. Solving (B-3)
leads to a value of Bc of $28.4 billion.
Appendix C: Calculation of the combined consequences of
damage heterogeneity and risk-
aversion
The calculation of the impact of the damage heterogeneity is
done using the same utility function [
Eq.(B-1) ]. If a hurricane makes landfall, and if 50% of the
damages d0 are perfectly shared, while
50% of the damages are shared by one million persons, i.e.
0.4% of the population, the whole
population utility is given by:
(C-1)
where q is the proportion of affected population (here q=0.4%).
The homogenous and risk-neutral equivalent damages d0’’ are
defined by the fact that supporting,
every year, with certainty and with perfect sharing among the
population, an amount of damages
pd0’’, would lower the utility by the same amount than the risk

of having, with a probability p, a
hurricane that would cause an amount d of damages that would
be imperfectly shared among the
population.
The homogenous and risk-neutral equivalent damages d”0 is
calculated using the relationship:
(C-2)
where the left-hand-side member gives the expected utility
under the risk of an amount of 2005-
equivalent damages d0 that would be imperfectly shared; and
the right-hand-side member gives the
utility of the consumption when an amount of 2005-equivalent
damages pd0’’ is perfectly shared
18
every year among the whole population. For a disaster causing
$56 billion of damages, the
resolution of Eq.(C-2) gives a value of the homogenous-risk-
neutral damages d’’0 = $69 billion,
corresponding to a risk-premium of $13 billion. In this case, the
present equivalent-certain cost of
the risk of hurricane Bc is $35.3 billion.

C H A P T E R 1 4 Risk Management and Worker Protec ti.docx

C H A P T E R 1 4 Risk Management and Worker Protec ti.docx

More Related Content

Similar to C H A P T E R 1 4 Risk Management and Worker Protec ti.docx (19)

More from RAHUL126667 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

C H A P T E R 1 4 Risk Management and Worker Protec ti.docx