Resolution No. 5303 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Eugene -Springfield Area Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan 6. Appendices Mitigation Plan Action Items Activity: Structural or Non -Structural Structural I I Non -Structural B/C Analysis STAPLE/E or ost-Effectiveness Figure G-1: Economic Analysis Flowchart Source: Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience at the University of Oregon's Community Service Center, 2005 Implementing the Approaches Benefit/cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and the STAPLE/E are important tools in evaluating whether to implement a mitigation activity. A framework for evaluating mitigation activities is outlined below. This framework should be used in further analyzing the feasibility of prioritized mitigation activities. 1. Identify the Activities Activities for reducing risk from natural hazards can include structural projects to enhance disaster resistance, education and outreach, and acquisition or demolition of exposed properties, among others. Different mitigation projects can assist in minimizing risk to natural hazards but do so at varying economic costs. 2. Calculate the Costs and Benefits Choosing economic criteria is essential to systematically calculating costs and benefits of mitigation projects and selecting the most appropriate activities. Potential economic criteria to evaluate alternatives include: • Determine the project cost. This may include initial project development costs, and repair and operating costs of maintaining projects over time. Estimate the benefits. Projecting the benefits, or cash flow resulting from a project can be difficult. Expected future returns from the mitigation effort depend on the correct specification of the risk and the effectiveness of the project, which may not be well known. Expected future costs depend on the physical durability and potential economic obsolescence of the investment. 6-124 January 2020