Optimal safety standards for dike-ring areas
AbstractAfter the flood disaster in 1953 in the southwestern part of the Netherlands, Van Dantzig tried to solve the economic-decision problem concerning the optimal height of dikes. His formula with a fixed exceedance probability after each investment (Econometrica, 1956) is still in use today in cost benefit analysis of flood-protection measures. However, his solution is both incomplete and wrong. In the context of economic growth, not the exceedance probability but the expected yearly loss by flooding is the key variable in the real optimal safety strategy. Under some conditions, it is optimal to keep this expected loss within a constant interval. Therefore, when the potential damage increases by economic growth, the flooding probability has to decline in the course of time in order to keep the expected loss between the fixed boundaries. The paper gives the formulas for the optimal boundaries for a more complicated problem which is more in line with engineering experience. One condition is that the rate of return at the moment of investment (FYRR) has to be zero (or positive). Then the net present value (NPV) of a safety investment will be very positive or even infinite. Therefore, in case of economic growth the well known NPV criterion in cost benefit analysis of a single project is not a sufficient criterion for investing. An application of the model with the original figures for the dike ring Central Holland has been added as well as a recent application for dike ring areas along the river Rhine.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis in its series CPB Discussion Paper with number 62.
Date of creation: Mar 2006
Date of revision:
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis
- D92 - Microeconomics - - Intertemporal Choice - - - Intertemporal Firm Choice, Investment, Capacity, and Financing
- H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Ruud de Mooij & Paul Tang, 2003. "Four futures of Europe," CPB Special Publication, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis 49, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
- Chahim, M. & Brekelmans, R.C.M. & Hertog, D. den & Kort, P.M., 2011. "An Impulse Control Approach to Dike Height Optimization (Replaced by CentER DP 2012-079)," Discussion Paper, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research 2011-097, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Jonkman, S.N. & Bockarjova, M. & Kok, M. & Bernardini, P., 2008. "Integrated hydrodynamic and economic modelling of flood damage in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 77-90, May.
- Chahim, M. & Brekelmans, R.C.M. & Hertog, D. den & Kort, P.M., 2012. "An Impulse Control Approach to Dike Height Optimization (Revised version of CentER DP 2011-097)," Discussion Paper, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research 2012-079, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.