loading page

Economically optimizing elevation of new, single-family residences for flood mitigation via life-cycle benefit-cost analysis
  • +4
  • Ehab Gnan,
  • Carol Friedland,
  • Rubayet Bin Mostafiz,
  • Md Adilur Rahim,
  • Thanos Gentimis,
  • Robert Rohli,
  • Arash Taghinezhad
Ehab Gnan
Bert S. Turner Department of Construction Management, Bert S. Turner Department of Construction Management
Author Profile
Carol Friedland
Bert S. Turner Department of Construction Management, Bert S. Turner Department of Construction Management
Author Profile
Rubayet Bin Mostafiz
Louisiana State University, Louisiana State University

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile
Md Adilur Rahim
Bert S. Turner Department of Construction Management, Bert S. Turner Department of Construction Management
Author Profile
Thanos Gentimis
Department of Experimental Statistics, Department of Experimental Statistics
Author Profile
Robert Rohli
Department of Oceanography & Coastal Sciences, Department of Oceanography & Coastal Sciences
Author Profile
Arash Taghinezhad
Bert S. Turner Department of Construction Management, Bert S. Turner Department of Construction Management
Author Profile

Abstract

Construction with freeboard – vertical height of a structure above the minimum required – is commonly accepted as a sound investment for flood hazard mitigation. However, determining the optimal height of freeboard poses a major decision problem. This research introduces a life-cycle benefit-cost analysis (LCBCA) approach for optimizing freeboard height for a new, single-family residence, while incorporating uncertainty, and, in the case of insured homes, considering the costs from losses, insurance, and freeboard (if any) to the homeowner and National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) separately. Using a hypothetical, case study home in Metairie, Louisiana, results show that adding 2 ft. of freeboard at the time of construction might be considered the optimal option given that it yields the highest net benefit, but the highest net benefit-cost ratio occurs for the 1 ft. freeboard. Even if flood loss reduction is not considered when adding freeboard, the savings in annual insurance premiums alone are sufficient to recover the construction costs paid by the homeowner if at least one foot of freeboard is included at construction. Collectively, these results based on conservative assumptions suggest that at the time of construction, even a small amount of freeboard provides a huge savings for the homeowner and (especially) for the financially-strapped NFIP. For community planners, the results suggest that wise planning with reasonable expectations on the front end makes for a more sustainable community.