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.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call