A policy analysis of Dutch river dike improvements--trading off safety, cost, and environmental impacts
ResearchPublished 1993
ResearchPublished 1993
This paper describes a portion of a study performed for the Dutch Minister of Transport, Public Works, and Water Management that examined the consequences of alternative policies for providing flood protection to the non-tidal branches of the Rijn and the Maas rivers in the Netherlands. It focuses on estimating the flood damage that would occur under alternative safety standards, estimating the financial costs of alternative dike improvement strategies, and estimating the damage that would be inflicted on the landscape, natural, and cultural values along the rivers under each of these strategies. The primary objective of this analysis was to identify policies that would provide a high level of safety, would not cost too much, and would preserve as much as possible of the existing landscape, natural, and cultural values along the rivers.
This publication is part of the RAND paper series. The paper series was a product of RAND from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.