As simplistic as this might sound, there's a reason that FEMA requires this sort of analysis for all of its Hazard Mitigation Plans. Figuring out what is at risk and how much it costs makes it much easier to weigh the different methods of reducing possible losses. If preserving wetlands and reefs has multiple economic, health and safety benefits, whereas spending the same amount building hard barriers like seawalls doesn't have those benefits, the choice should be clear. Should be.
I hope they also include the fact that when some systems are given the proper support & room to adapt, they are self-maintaining and, sometimes, self-expanding in response to future sea-level rise, whereas walls stay the same height and need expensive repairs.
New Map Shows Where Nature Protects U.S. Coast
'via Blog this'
No comments:
Post a Comment