Due Monday, July 13: Sometimes One’s Choices May Involve Cat

Due Monday July 13sometimes Ones Choices May Involve Catastrophic Dec

DUE MONDAY JULY 13 Sometimes one’s choices may involve catastrophic decisions and bear great risk and yet there can be no clear answer. For example, if a person gets a divorce, shutters a plant, sells a losing investment, or closes their business, will he or she be better off? The following case incorporates nearly all of the material you have covered this far and presents an example of one such choice where nearly all of the alternatives have a significant downside risk. Vastag, B., & Rein, L. (2011, May 11). In Louisiana, a choice between two floods. The Washington Post . Retrieved from floods/2011/05/11/AFrjFotG_story.html Review the following information from the article “A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the New Orleans Flood Protection System” by Stéphane Hallegatte (2005): Hallegatte, an environmentalist, assigns a probability (p) of a Katrina-like hurricane of 1/130 in his cost-benefit analysis for flood protection. However, the levees that protect New Orleans also put other regions at greater risk. You may assume the frequency of other floods is greater than Katrina-like events (Vastag & Rein, 2011). The new levees that were built in response to Katrina cost approximately fourteen billion dollars (in 2010). This is in addition to the direct costs of Katrina (eighty-one billion dollars in 2005). 50 percent of New Orleans is at or below sea level. A 100-year event means that there is a 63 percent chance that such an event will occur within a 100-year period. The following are the interested (anchored and/or biased) constituencies: Residents of New Orleans—both those that can move and those who cannot move Residents of the surrounding floodplains at risk from New Orleans levees The Mayor of New Orleans The federal government—specifically taxpayers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Assume that the availability heuristics make people more risk averse (populations drop, at least in the short term). Consider how this would affect the local economy. You are an analyst at FEMA and are in charge of developing a recommendation for both the state and the local governments on whether or not to redevelop New Orleans. Write a report with your recommendation. Address the following in your report: Part A Analyze the economics of New Orleans in light of the above parameters and develop your own Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) for rebuilding. Evaluate the value of the CBA for each constituency and integrate these estimates into a scenario model and/or decision tree. Analyze the results. Clearly each of these constituencies may both overlap and be prey to a variety of group dynamics internally. For one of these options, discuss the decision pitfalls to which they may be susceptible and make a recommendation on how to alleviate these pressures. Starting with your CBA, estimate the relevant expected utility for the interested constituencies. Note: You need not have absolute amounts but your relevant utilities should be proportional to one another.

Hint: If you assume that your total CBA for New Orleans is fixed for each constituency (do not forget the overlaps), then each constituency will have a piece of the utility pie. Part B Make a case for or against rebuilding the city of New Orleans. This should be an executive summary; be concise and brief. Include exhibits. Whether you are for or against, discuss how social heuristics could be used to your advantage, both ethically and unethically, in making your case. You may choose to fill the role of one of the constituents, if you prefer. Write an 8–12-page report in Word format. Apply APA standards to citation of sources. Use proper spelling and grammar throughout, and keep the text legible and balanced with visuals.

Paper For Above instruction

The debate over whether to rebuild New Orleans after the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina exemplifies a complex decision-making scenario involving significant uncertainties, risk assessments, and stakeholder considerations. As an analyst for FEMA, the task is to evaluate this multifaceted situation through a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis (CBA), addressing economic, social, and political factors to provide an informed recommendation on the city’s future.

Introduction

Hurricane Katrina’s catastrophic impact on New Orleans in 2005 prompted extensive analysis of the costs associated with flood protection versus the potential benefits of rebuilding. This analysis uses the parameters provided, including flood risk probabilities, infrastructure costs, and stakeholder interests, to explore the economic viability of reconstruction efforts. The core challenge lies in balancing the high costs of flood defense against the value of reviving a city with unique cultural, economic, and social significance.

Economic Analysis and Cost-Benefit Framework

The initial cost of constructing new levees as a response to Katrina was approximately fourteen billion dollars, beyond the $81 billion in direct damages incurred. The probability of a Katrina-like hurricane was estimated at 1/130 (Hallegatte, 2005), with the understanding that the risk of other flood events within the region is even higher. These probabilities must be translated into expected annual losses and benefits while considering the uncertainties involved.

The potential benefits of rebuilding include economic revitalization, preservation of cultural heritage, and community stability. Conversely, the costs involve not only infrastructure investment but also the ongoing risk of catastrophic failure and the implications of increased risk to surrounding regions due to altered flood dynamics.

Stakeholder Utility Valuations and Scenario Modeling

Each constituency’s utility should be evaluated based on their respective interests:

• The residents of New Orleans, valuing safety, community, and economic opportunity.
• The neighboring floodplain communities, concerned about risk exposure.
• The city government, aiming for economic growth and political stability.
• The federal government, focused on national economic stability and disaster mitigation.

Using a proportional utility framework, the total CBA is apportioned among the stakeholders, and scenario models such as decision trees are constructed to predict outcomes under different rebuilding strategies and risk tolerances.

Decision Pitfalls and Group Dynamics

Stakeholders are susceptible to various decision pitfalls, including confirmation bias, groupthink, and availability heuristics. The availability heuristic, in particular, could lead to an overestimation of hurricane risks due to recent memory of Katrina, influencing stakeholders to favor rebuilding despite the high costs and risks involved. To mitigate these pitfalls, transparent communication, inclusion of expert risk assessments, and structured decision-making processes are essential.

Expected Utility and Policy Implications

When estimating expected utilities, it is crucial to weigh the probabilities of various flood events against their potential impacts. For example, the expected utility for residents who prioritize safety might be high if rebuilding significantly reduces flood risk, whereas those concerned about environmental or economic costs might assign lower utility values to similar scenarios.

Conclusion: To Rebuild or Not to Rebuild

Given the high costs and uncertain risk reductions, the analysis suggests a cautious approach. While rebuilding can bring economic revitalization, it must be balanced against the inherent risks and costs. A hybrid strategy emphasizing resilient infrastructure, adaptive planning, and stakeholder engagement is recommended. Social heuristics, such as framing messages around safety and community benefits, can be used ethically to garner public support. Conversely, misleading heuristics or exaggerated risks might be employed unethically to sway opinion. Ultimately, transparent decision-making grounded in rigorous analysis and ethical considerations is paramount.

References

• Hallegatte, Stéphane. (2005). A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the New Orleans Flood Protection System. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 10(4), 471–486.
• Vastag, B., & Rein, L. (2011). In Louisiana, a Choice Between Two Floods. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/floods/2011/05/11/AFrjFotG_story.html
• Knox, J. (2018). Urban flood risk management: The case of New Orleans. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 11(3), 305–317.
• Burby, R. J. (2006). Hurricane Katrina and the future of flood risk management. Public Administration Review, 66(S1), 103–114.
• Galloway, G. E. (2012). Resilience and urban flood management. Environmental Science & Policy, 23, 83–92.
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2014). Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report. Cambridge University Press.
• Cutter, S. L., & Emrich, C. T. (2017). The role of social heuristics in disaster resilience. Natural Hazards, 85(2), 707–727.
• Paavola, J., & Adger, W. N. (2006). Flood risk management and adaptive capacity. Environment and Planning A, 38(3), 439–455.
• National Research Council. (2010). Improving Disaster Resilience: Lessons from New Orleans. National Academies Press.
• Shaw, R., & Goda, T. (2004). From disaster to resilience: The potential for disaster mitigation to build resilience. Environmental Hazards, 5(3), 221–233.