An Evaluation of the Economic Performance of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Shore Protection Program
An Evaluation of the Economic Performance of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Shore Protection Program
复制标题
美国陆军工程兵团海岸防护计划的经济绩效评估
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1997
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. A. Sudar
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. M. Hillyer;E. Stakhiv;R. A. Sudar
应管理和预算办公室（OMB）的要求，对美国陆军工程兵团（USACE）海岸防护计划进行了这项研究。调查显示，USACE海岸线保护计划覆盖了全国2,700英里严重侵蚀海岸线的8%，包括82个特别授权的项目。从1950年至1995年，这82个项目的实际支出总额，包括定期营养，为7.31亿美元。按1995年美元计算，这一支出为16.62亿美元。在本研究所涵盖的时间段内（1950年至今），该计划已从主要的“硬”结构（丁坝、海堤、防波堤等）主要是“软”海滩修复和营养通过放置沙子。海滩修复和营养也是最环保的海岸保护措施。这些项目在施工前与环境机构进行了密切的协调，以确保项目不会对环境造成长期不利影响。在同一时期，由于政府的政策和法律，该计划已从主要的娱乐导向转向减少风暴损失的保护之一。从项目成本和沙位数量的角度来看，对项目长期绩效的评估表明，这是一个管理良好且具有成本效益的项目。总的来说，费用略低于估计，沙子的总量略高于估计。然而，从效益的角度来看，这些项目是否按预期运行非常难以确定。由于沿海风暴的高度可变性和不可预测性，海岸防护工程的“实际”风暴损失减少效益可能与规划和设计期间的预测有很大差异。效益-成本分析的关键是，效益是根据一个概率假设来估计的，即在分析期间（通常为50年），将发生与过去类似的一系列事件，造成类似程度的财产损失。因此，记录期越长，“估计”效益就越有可能与“实际”或计量效益（和成本）趋于一致。管理和预算办公室特别关注的一个项目是诱导发展，即，海岸保护工程是否会导致保护区的增长和发展，从而最终增加风暴损失，而不是减少损失。在研究过程中进行了三项具体的经济分析，以确定USACE的海岸保护项目是否会促进其保护地区的发展。这三项补充研究是：（1）海滨社区居民调查;（2）海滨开发的计量经济学模型;（3）海滨房价的计量经济学分析。这些方法都无法证实存在可衡量的诱发发展联系。分析表明，海滨社区发展的主要决定因素是海滨需求的增长，其基础是非沿海地区收入和就业的增加，而不是海岸保护项目的存在或缺乏。事实上，公众对联邦海岸保护计划（目前存在联邦项目）以及USACE通过项目建设参与降低风险的认识有限。
This study of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) shore protection program was undertaken as a result of a request from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The investigation disclosed that the USACE shoreline protection program covers 8 percent of the nation's 2,700 miles of critically eroding shoreline and consists of 82 specifically authorized projects. Total actual expenditures, including periodic nourishment, for these 82 projects from 1950 to 1995 have been $731 million. When updated to 1995 dollars this expenditure becomes $1,662 million. Over the period of time covered by this study (l950-current) the program has shifted from primarily "hard" structures (groins, seawalls, breakwaters, etc.) to primarily "soft" beach restoration and nourishment through placement of sand. Beach restoration and nourishment is also the most environmentally compatible shore protection measure. The projects receive intense preconstruction coordination with environmental agencies to assure no long term adverse environmental impacts result from the projects. Over this same time period, as a result of Administration policy and law, the program has shifted from primarily recreation oriented to one of protection for storm damage reduction. From the standpoint of program cost and volumes of sand emplacements the evaluation of the long-term performance of the program shows that it is a well-managed and cost-effective program. Overall, costs were slightly less than estimated, and overall quantities of sand were slightly higher than estimated. Whether or not the projects are performing as expected from a benefit standpoint, however, is very difficult to determine. Because of the high variable and largely unpredictable nature of coastal storms, the "actual" storm damage reduction benefits of shore protection projects can differ greatly from those forecasted during planning and design. The key to the benefit-cost analysis is that the benefits are estimated based on a probabalistic assumption that, over the period of analysis (generally 50 years), a comparable sequence of events will occur as in the past, causing a comparable level of property damages. Hence, the longer the period of record, the more likely that the "estimated" benefits will converge on the "actual" or measured benefits (and costs). One item of specific concern to OMB was that of induced development, i.e., do shore protection projects' lead to more growth and development in protected areas, and hence, ultimately to increases in storm damages rather than a reduction in damages. Three specific economic analyses were applied during the course of the study to determine whether USACE shore protection projects induce development in the areas they protect. These three complementary studies were: (1) a survey of beachfront community residents; (2) an econometric model of beachfront development;and (3) an econometric analysis of beachfront housing prices. None of these approaches could verify that there is a measurable induced development link. The analyses demonstrated that the primary determinant of development of beachfront communities is growth in beachfront demand based on rising income and employment in noncoastal areas, rather than the presence or absence of a shore protection project. In fact, there is limited public awareness of the Federal shore protection program, where Federal projects currently exist, and of the involvement of the USACE in reducing risks through project construction.