MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7011210588

Local flood proofing programs

2005· other· en· W7011210588 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueUS Army Corps of Engineers: Engineer Research and Development Center (Knowledge Core) · 2005
Typeother
Langueen
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFlood mythOutreachFlood insurancePublic workLocal communityFlood controlState (computer science)Flood mitigation
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Local Flood Proofing\nPrograms\nUS Army Corps of Engineers\nNational Nonstructural/Flood Proofing Committee\nFebruary 2005Local Flood Proofing Programs\nContents\nChapter 1. Introduction........................................................................................................1\n1.1. Background............................................................................................................1\n1.2. This Publication.....................................................................................................2\n1.3. Flood Damage Reduction Measures......................................................................2\nChapter 2. Benefits to the Community................................................................................9\n2.1. Why Start a Program?............................................................................................9\n2.2. The Community Rating System...........................................................................12\nChapter 3. Program Assessment........................................................................................16\n3.1. Technical Assessment..........................................................................................17\n3.2. Legal Constraints.................................................................................................21\n3.3. Administrative Assessment.................................................................................25\nChapter 4. Public Information Activities...........................................................................30\n4.1. Outreach Projects.................................................................................................30\n4.2. Technical Information.........................................................................................35\n4.3. Technical Assistance...........................................................................................36\nChapter 5. Funding Sources...............................................................................................42\n5.1. Local Taxes..........................................................................................................42\n5.2. Other Local Funds and Fees................................................................................43\n5.3. State and Federal Grants......................................................................................44\n5.4. Property Owners..................................................................................................47\n5.5. Creative Financing...............................................................................................48\nChapter 6. Funding Arrangements.....................................................................................50\n6.1. Low Interest Loans..............................................................................................50\n6.2. Rebates.................................................................................................................51\n6.3. Cost Sharing.........................................................................................................53\n6.4. Full Funding.........................................................................................................54\nChapter 7. Implementation.................................................................................................56\n7.1. Implementation Policies......................................................................................56\n7.2. Legal Arrangements.............................................................................................61\n7.3. Design Standards.................................................................................................63\n7.4. Implementation Procedures.................................................................................66\nChapter 8. Resources.........................................................................................................73\n8.1. US Army Corps of Engineers..............................................................................73\n8.2. Funding and Technical Assistance......................................................................74\n8.3. References............................................................................................................75\nLocal Flood Proofing Programs – i – February 2005\nAcknowledgements\nThis document was prepared by French & Associates, Ltd., Park Forest, Illinois, under Contract No. DACW35-03-P-0115. It is based on publications, research findings, site visits, and interviews with the following communities and organizations. Their assistance is appreciated.\nAscension Parish, LA *\nAurora, IL\nBarbour County, WV\nBartlett, IL *\nBolingbrook, IL\nBoulder, CO *\nCentralia, WA *\nCitrus County, FL *\nDare County, NC *\nDavenport, IA *\nDes Plaines, IL *\nDuPage County, IL\nElgin, IL\nFairfax County, VA *\nFort Collins, CO *\nFrankfort, KY *\nGrand Forks, ND *\nHillsborough County, FL *\nHomewood, IL\nKing County, WA *\nLansing, IL *\nLexington-Fayette Urban County, KY\nLicking County, Ohio *\nMahoning County, OH\nMandeville, LA *\nMecklenburg County, NC *\nMobile, AL\nMount Prospect, IL *\nPrince George’s County, MD *\nRegina, Saskatchewan\nRosemont, IL\nSacramento County, CA *\nSnoqualmie, WA *\nSouth Holland, IL *\nSt. Charles, IL *\nSt. Charles, MI\nSt. Tammany Parish, LA *\nVassar, MI\nIllinois-American Water Company, Alton, IL\nJefferson County Drainage District #6, TX\nMaumee River Basin Commission, Fort Wayne, IN\nMetropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, St. Louis, MO\nSouth Carolina Sea Grant, Charleston, SC\nWashington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA\n* Community is in the Community Rating System, receiving credit for providing flood proofing information and assistance to property owners (see page 12).\nNote: This list is not meant to be an all-inclusive list of communities that have local flood proofing programs. There are many other active programs that were not contacted due to time and resource constraints.\nExcept as noted, all illustrations are from the referenced community or French & Associates, Ltd..\nLocal Flood Proofing Programs – ii – February 2005\nChapter 1. Introduction\n1.1. Background\nFlood proofing as a flood damage reduction measure: Flood proofing is a proven approach to reducing flood damage. It involves altering an existing building or its immediate area to prevent or minimize damage during a flood. Alterations may range from minor changes to the utilities, to waterproofing walls, to elevating the building above flood levels. Flood damage reduction measures are summarized in Section 1.3 and described in more detail in the references listed in Section 8.3.\nThe potential for flood proofing to reduce flood losses is significant. More and more communities are realizing that for financial, technical and environmental reasons, the traditional structural flood control measures will not solve every local flood problem. Flood proofing approaches to flood reduction have several advantages:\n→ They can be as or more effective for certain types of flooding\n→ They can be much less expensive\n→ Costs are often assumed by or shared with the property owners\n→ They can be less disruptive to neighborhoods and habitat\n→ They can be constructed quickly, without environmental reviews and permit delays\nWhile many people have flood proofed their homes or businesses, most have used common sense or self-taught approaches. Studies have shown that technical knowledge and financing are the greatest impediments to implementing a flood proofing project. While surveys showed that many people want to flood proof, lack of funds was listed as the most important reason why they did not. Further, flooded homeowners who received assistance from the government were more likely to flood proof and spend more money to do a more effective job.\nGovernment programs: Federal, state and local agencies have researched techniques, promoted flood proofing as a viable flood protection measure, assisted property owners, and implemented their own projects. Some Federal agencies, notably the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), have financed flood proofing projects. Some states have implemented public information and financial assistance programs. However, statutory authority and limited resources have kept the Federal and state programs from reaching many people. More attention is needed from local governments.\nThis floodwall was installed after the owner attended a local workshop on flood proofing. The community also helped pay for the project with a rebate. It has kept floodwaters out of the house three times since it was built in 1991 (South Holland, Illinois).\nLocal Flood Proofing Programs – 1 – February 2005\nLocal programs: Some local governments have flood proofed public buildings or provided technical or financial support for flood proofing projects on private property. Each community’s program was developed differently and is administered differently. However, all believe flood proofing is important enough to deserve their attention.\nAs preparation for this publication, staff from over 40 local flood proofing programs were contacted and interviewed. The experiences of these programs can be very helpful in guiding other communities in developing their own approaches to flood proofing.\n1.2. This Publication\nThis document reviews how a community can develop and administer its own flood proofing program. The reader should follow the step by step suggestions in the following chapters:\n→ First, determine whether the community would benefit by having an active local flood proofing program. This is the subject of Chapter 2.\n→ Once a community decides to get involved, it should assess the factors that affect the design of its program.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,169
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0040,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,065
Tête enseignante GPT0,318
Écart entre enseignants0,253 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUS Army Corps of Engineers: Engineer Research and Development Center (Knowledge Core)Travaux en français237 207