LASA 2—The Case For, or Against

Sometimes one’s choices may involve catastrophic decisions and bear great risk and yet there can be no clear answer. For example, if a person gets a divorce, shutters a plant, sells a losing investment, or closes their business, will he or she be better off? The following case incorporates nearly all of the material you have covered this far and presents an example of one such choice where nearly all of the alternatives have a significant downside risk.

Review the following information from the article “A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the New Orleans Flood Protection System” by Stéphane Hallegatte (2005):

• Hallegatte, an environmentalist, assigns a probability (p) of a Katrina-like hurricane of 1/130 in his cost-benefit analysis for flood protection. However, the levees that protect New Orleans also put other regions at greater risk. You may assume the frequency of other floods is greater than Katrina-like events (Vastag & Rein, 2011).
• The new levees that were built in response to Katrina cost approximately fourteen billion dollars (in 2010). This is in addition to the direct costs of Katrina (eighty-one billion dollars in 2005).
• 50 percent of New Orleans is at or below sea level.
• A 100-year event means that there is a 63 percent chance that such an event will occur within a 100-year period.
• The following are the interested (anchored and/or biased)constituencies:Residents of New Orleans—both those that can move and those who cannot moveResidents of the surrounding floodplains at risk from New Orleans leveesThe Mayor of New OrleansThe federal government—specifically taxpayers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

Assume that the availability heuristics makes people more risk averse (populations drop, at least in the short term). Consider how this would affect the local economy.

You are an analyst at FEMA and are in charge of developing a recommendation for both the state and the local governments on whether or not to redevelop New Orleans.

Write a report with your recommendation. Address the following in your report:

Part A

• Analyze the economics of New Orleans in light of the above parameters and develop your own Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) for rebuilding.
• Evaluate the value of the CBA for each constituency and integrate these estimates into a scenario model and/or decision tree. Analyze the results.
• Clearly each of these constituencies may both overlap and be prey to a variety of group dynamics internally. For one of these options, discuss the decision pitfalls to which they may be susceptible and make a recommendation on how to alleviate these pressures.
• Starting with your CBA, estimate the relevant expected utility for the interested constituencies.

Note: You need not have absolute amounts but your relevant utilities should be proportional to one another.Hint: If you assume that your total CBA for New Orleans is fixed for each constituency (do not forget the overlaps), then each constituency will have a piece of the utility pie.

Part B

• Make a case for or against rebuilding the city of New Orleans. This should be an executive summary; be concise and brief. Include exhibits.
• Whether you are for or against, discuss how social heuristics could be used to your advantage, both ethically and unethically, in making your case. You may choose to fill the role of one of the constituents, if you prefer.

Write an 8–10-page report in Word format. Apply APA standards to citation of sources. Use proper spelling and grammar throughout, and keep the text legible and balanced with visuals. Use the following file naming convention: LastnameFirstInitial_M6_A2 . 

This assignment is worth 360 points and will be graded using a rubric. Download and read the rubric to understand the expectations.

 

 

LASA 2—The Case For, or Against, New Orleans Grading Rubric

NOTE: If a component is absent, student receives a zero for that component.

Assignment
Component

Unsatisfactory

< 77%

(C and below)

Emerging

78–82%

(C+ to B-)

Proficient

83–89%

(B to B+)

Exemplary

90–100%

(A- to A)

Score
To calculate score:

(% / 100) x max
points

e.g.
(80% / 100) x 12 =

9.6
Analyze the
economics of New
Orleans in light of
the given
parameters and
develop a Cost-
Benefit Analysis
(CBA) for
rebuilding.

Course Objectives
(CO) 3 & 4

Analysis of New
Orleans economics is
inaccurate or
incomplete. It includes
an estimated cash
flow/CBA, but it is
unreasonable. A few
outcomes and possible
scenarios are
presented but many are
not likely. Too few
constituencies and
interdependencies are
represented.

CBA for rebuilding is
unreasonable in
regards to scope,
resources, and/or
objectives. CBA
provides resources
needed but how they
will achieve objectives
is unclear. Research

Analysis of New
Orleans’ economics is
somewhat accurate or
somewhat incomplete. It
includes an estimated
cash flow/CBA but is
somewhat
unreasonable. A variety
of outcomes and several
possible scenarios are
presented but some may
not be likely. Most
constituencies and their
interdependencies are
represented.

CBA for rebuilding is
somewhat unreasonable
in regards to scope,
resources, or objectives.
CBA provides resources
needed to achieve
objectives but is not
specific in detail.

Analysis of New
Orleans’ economics is
accurate and complete.
It includes a reasonably
estimated cash
flow/CBA with a variety
of likely outcomes and
several possible
scenarios. All
constituencies and their
interdependencies are
represented.

CBA for rebuilding is
reasonable in regards to
scope, resources, and
objectives. CBA
provides specific details
and resources needed to
achieve objectives.
Research and evidence
from the case study are
used to support ideas.

Analysis of New
Orleans’ economics
is insightful and
thorough. It includes
a soundly estimated
cash flow/CBA with
a variety of likely
outcomes and
several possible
scenarios. All
constituencies and
their
interdependencies
are represented.

CBA for rebuilding is
thoughtful in regards
to scope, resources,
and objectives. CBA
provides specific,
astute details and
resources needed to
achieve objectives.
Research and

/ 40

Page 1 of 5
Management Decision Models

©2011 Argosy University Online Programs

LASA 2—The Case For, or Against, New Orleans Grading Rubric 2

Page 2 of 5
Management Decision Models

©2011 Argosy University Online Programs

and evidence from the

case study are present
but are either
inappropriate or too
sporadic.

Research and evidence
from the case study are
presented but how they
support the ideas must
be inferred.

evidence from the
case study are used
to support ideas.

Evaluate the value
of that CBA for
each constituency
and integrate these
estimates into a
scenario model
and/or decision
tree. Analyze the
results.

CO 1, 4, & 5

Evaluation presents
benefits of the CBA for
the constituency, but is
either inaccurate or too
vague. Some
constituencies are
described but some are
missing. Most are
appropriate to the
situation.

Scenario model and/or
decision tree is unclear
or does not
appropriately integrate
the estimates.
Integration of
constituencies is
addressed but is
inaccurate. Examples
of how decisions are
conditional upon each
other are present but
are inaccurate.

Evaluation presents
benefits of the CBA for
each constituency but is
not specific. Generally,
each constituency is
described and
appropriate to the
situation, but either a
few constituencies are
missing or they are
under-explained.

Scenario model and/or
decision tree is
somewhat clear or does
not completely integrate
the estimates
appropriately. Integration
of constituencies is
addressed but left a bit
vague. Examples of how
the decisions are
conditional upon each
other are present, but
some conditions must be
inferred.

Evaluation presents
specific benefits of the
CBA for each
constituency, and each
constituency is clearly
described and
appropriate to the
situation.

Scenario model and/or
decision tree clearly and
appropriately integrates
the estimates.
Integration of
constituencies is clearly
addressed and specific
examples of how the
decisions are conditional
upon each other are
present.

Analysis of the results is
specific and provides a
scenario model and
explains interrelation of
constituencies’
decisions.

Evaluation presents
specific, acute
benefits of the CBA
for each
constituency, and
each constituency is
completely
described and
insightfully apt to the
situation.

Scenario model
and/or decision tree
completely,
concisely, and
insightfully
integrates the
estimates.
Integration of
constituencies is
acutely addressed
and specific
examples of how the
decisions are
conditional upon
each other are
thoughtfully
presented.

Analysis of the
results is specific
and provides a
scenario model and

/ 76

LASA 2—The Case For, or Against, New Orleans Grading Rubric 3

Page 3 of 5
Management Decision Models

©2011 Argosy University Online Programs

explains interrelation

of constituencies’
decision in detail.

Discuss the
decision pitfalls to
which the
constituencies may
be susceptible and
make a
recommendation on
how to alleviate
those pressures.

CO 2 & 5

Decision problems to
which the
constituencies may be
susceptible are unclear
or inappropriate to the
situation.
Recommendations are
unreasonable. Any
theory or research
reference is unclear in
regards to its support.

Decision problems to
which the constituencies
may be susceptible are
not clearly identified or
they are somewhat
inappropriate to the
situation.
Recommendations are
somewhat reasonable
and reference theory or
research (but support
must be inferred).

Decision problems to
which the constituencies
may be susceptible are
clearly identified and
appropriate to the
situation.
Recommendations are
reasonable and
grounded in theory or
research.

Decision problems
to which the
constituencies may
be susceptible are
astutely identified
and appropriate to
the situation.
Recommendations
are thoughtful and
grounded in theory
or research.

/ 40

Starting with the
CBA, estimate the
relevant expected
utility for these
parties.

CO 4

Estimation of the
relevant expected utility
for these parties is
unreasonable or not
proportional to one
another. Evidence are
sporadic or does not
support ideas.
Estimation does not
reflect the CBA
proposed.

Estimation of the
relevant expected utility
for these parties is
somewhat reasonable
and somewhat
proportional to one
another. Evidence is
provided, but how it
supports the ideas is
unclear. Estimation
references the CBA
proposal, but reflection
is unclear.

Estimation of the
relevant expected utility
for these parties is
reasonable, proportional
to one another, and
grounded in evidence.
Estimation reflects the
CBA proposed.

Estimation of the
relevant expected
utility for these
parties is thoughtful,
proportional to one
another, and
grounded in
insightful evidence.
Estimation clearly
reflects and relates
to the CBA
proposed.

/ 40

Make a case for or
against rebuilding
the city of New
Orleans. This
should be an
executive
summary—be
concise and brief.
Include exhibits.

Executive summary
waffles between
whether or not to
rebuild New Orleans.
Evidence and research
is sporadic or does not
support the ideas.
Stance occasionally is
biased or

Executive summary
takes a stance on
whether to rebuild New
Orleans or not, but
stance is unclear.
Evidence and research
are provided, but how
they support the ideas is
unclear. Stance is
generally reasonable

Executive summary
clearly takes a stance on
whether to rebuild New
Orleans or not. Specific
evidence and research
are provided to support
ideas. Stance is
reasonable and
unbiased.

Executive summary
insightfully takes a
stance on whether
to rebuild New
Orleans or not.
Specific, astute
evidence and
research are
provided to support
ideas. Stance is

/ 76

LASA 2—The Case For, or Against, New Orleans Grading Rubric 4

Page 4 of 5
Management Decision Models

©2011 Argosy University Online Programs

CO 1, 2, & 5 unreasonable. and unbiased. reasonable and
unbiased.

Discuss how social
heuristics could be
used to an
advantage, both
ethically and
unethically, in
making a case.

CO 2

Discussion of how
social heuristics can be
used to gain advantage
is unclear or inaccurate.
Evidence and research
are sporadic or does
not support the ideas.
Ethical and unethical
advantages are
incomplete or
inaccurately identified.

Discussion of how social
heuristics can be used to
gain advantage is
somewhat unclear or
somewhat inaccurate.
Evidence and research
is provided, but how they
support the ideas is
unclear. Ethical and
unethical advantages
are identified but are
incomplete or unclear.

Discussion of how social
heuristics can be used to
gain advantage is clear,
accurate, and provides
specific examples to
support its ideas. Ethical
and unethical
advantages are
identified and discussed.

Discussion of how
social heuristics can
be used to gain
advantage is
thoughtful,
complete, and
provides specific
examples to support
its ideas. Ethical and
unethical
advantages are
precisely identified
and insightfully
discussed.

/ 40

Estimate what
percentage of the
class was for,
versus against,
rebuilding and
provide a
confidence interval
for the estimate.

CO 2

Estimation is inaccurate
or unsupported.
Confidence interval is
underdeveloped or
inaccurate.

Estimation is somewhat
inaccurate or not clearly
grounded in evidence
from the case study.
Confidence interval is
somewhat vague or
inaccurate.

Estimation is accurate
and grounded in
evidence from the case
study. Confidence
interval is detailed and
accurate.

Estimation is
insightful and
grounded in
evidence from the
case study.
Confidence interval
is precise, detailed
clear, and accurate.

/ 12

Ensure academic
writing, such as
grammar, spelling,
and attribution of
sources, is
appropriate.

Writing is unclear and
disorganized and
rereading to solidify
understanding is
frequently necessary.
Although an attempt at
ethical scholarship is
attempted, it is sloppy
or incomplete
throughout. Spelling,
grammar, or
punctuation errors
severely interfere with
readers’

Writing is somewhat
clear and is somewhat
organized, although
rereading to solidify
understanding is
occasionally necessary.
It demonstrates an
attempt at ethical
scholarship in accurate
representation and
attribution of sources, but
errors are occasional or
minor. Writing has good

Writing is generally clear
and in an organized
manner. It demonstrates
ethical scholarship in
accurate representation
and attribution of
sources; and generally
displays accurate
spelling, grammar, and
punctuation. Errors are
few, isolated, and do not
interfere with reader’s
comprehension.

Writing is clear,
concise, and in an
organized manner;
demonstrates ethical
scholarship in
accurate
representation and
attribution of
sources; and
displays accurate
spelling, grammar,
and punctuation.

/36

LASA 2—The Case For, or Against, New Orleans Grading Rubric 5

Page 5 of 5
Management Decision Models

©2011 Argosy University Online Programs

comprehension. spelling, grammar, and

punctuation, but errors
somewhat interfere with
readers’ comprehension.

Total /360 points