Economic benefit risk assessment of controlling land subsidence in Shanghai
- 54 Downloads
Land subsidence, a major and well-known geological hazard in Shanghai, has caused serious losses. Based on past studies, the cost and benefit of the Shanghai's land subsidence hazard control were assessed and forecasted by risk assessment. An economic benefit-risk assessment was taken in order to control completely land subsidence and make rational safety elevations of the flood control wall. The result of risk assessment shows that the present 6.9-m elevation of the floodwall is not sufficient for the standard of “occurring only once in a thousand years.∝ After 200 years, the spring tide hazardous risk losses caused by land subsidence would amount to 49.73 million yuan per year. The proportion of expense in thoroughly controlling land subsidence to the economic benefit is 1∶:41.44; to construct the flood control wall to an elevation that would prevent inundation from a flood event, to reach the standard of “occurring only once in a thousand years,∝ and to avoid tide losses, the ratio of the investment of reducing tide hazard to the economic benefit should be 1∶:53.24.
Key wordsSubsidence Risk assessment
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Jin Lunian and Qian Binjun (1989) The characteristics and programme for environmental risk assessment. Environ Pollut Control 11(3):19–20.Google Scholar
- Lin Tongzeng (1986) Operations research. China: Mechanical Industry Publishing House, pp 308–318Google Scholar
- Liu Tiezhu and Sun Shuguang (1987) Study on the law of land subsidence in Shanghai. Asia and the Pacific regional experts conference of coastal city geology. Shanghai. 13–22 September 1987Google Scholar
- Liu Fengzhen and Hu Li (1984) Analysis report on Huangpu River tidewater level. Unpublished report.Google Scholar
- Wang Shiming and Fan Wei (1987) Losses investigation on tidewater hazard in Shanghai. Huangpu section comprehensive control study, vol 1Google Scholar
- Yu Qingkang (1982) The trend of controlling hazard plan at abroad. City Planning, No. 5, p 50Google Scholar