Spatial-temporal aspects of cost-benefit analysis for park management: an example from Khao Yai National Park, Thailand

Using a model calibrated to Khao Yai National Park in Thailand, this paper highlights the importance of generating explicitly spatial and temporal data for developing management plans for tropical protected forests. Spatial and temporal cost-benefit analysis should account for the interactions between different land uses – such as the benefits of contiguous areas of preserved land and edge effects – and the realities of villagers living near forests who rely on extracted resources. By taking a temporal perspective, this paper provides a rare empirical assessment of the importance of quasi-option values when determining optimal management plans.

Cost-benefit analysis

Over the past 30 years, cost–benefit analysis (CBA) has been applied to various areas of public policies and projects. The aim of this essay is to describe the origins of CBA, classify typologies of costs and benefits, define efficiency under CBA and discuss issues associated with the use of a microeconomic tool in macroeconomic contexts.

The cost-benefit of using soft silicone multilayered foam dressings to prevent sacral and heel pressure ulcers in trauma and critically ill patients: a within-trial analysis of the Border Trial.

Little is known about the cost-benefit of soft silicone foam dressings in pressure ulcer (PU) prevention among critically ill patients in the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU). A randomised controlled trial to assess the efficacy of soft silicone foam dressings in preventing sacral and heel PUs was undertaken among 440 critically ill patients in an acute care hospital. Participants were randomly allocated either to an intervention group with prophylactic dressings applied to the sacrum and heels in the ED and changed every 3 days in the ICU or to a control group with standard PU prevention care provided during their ED and ICU stay. The results showed a significant reduction of PU incidence rates in the intervention group (P = 0·001). The intervention cost was estimated to be AU$36·61 per person based on an intention-to-treat analysis, but this was offset by lower downstream costs associated with PU treatment (AU$1103·52). Therefore, the average net cost of the intervention was lower than that of the control (AU$70·82 versus AU$144·56). We conclude that the use of soft silicone multilayered foam dressings to prevent sacral and heel PUs among critically ill patients results in cost savings in the acute care hospital.

Subclinical mastitis caused by staphylococcus aureus: Analysis cost benefit of antibiotic therapy in lactating cows

The cost benefit analysis of treatment of bovine subclinical mastitis caused by S. aureus was evaluated. Two hundred and seventy udder quarters with subclinical mastitis and healthy were selected in four groups, in conformity to lactational stage and with the treatment or not. Group 1 included treated animals 10 to 60 days in milk; group 2 included treated animals 61 days in milk until two months before the end of lactation; group 3 included animals not treated 10 to 60 days in milk; group 4 included animals not treated from 61 days in milk until two months before the end of lactation. Treatment with gentamicin (150 mg) was accomplished by intramammary doses, once a day, after sensitivity tests. The mammary quarters were evaluated after 30 days again. The costs with the treatment were calculated considering a S. aureus prevalence of 5%, expenses with antibiotic, loss in milk, tests of sensitivity and workload. There was loss of income of 2% and 14% in the groups 1 and 2, respectively, when compared with the incomes before treatment. In such case, the treatment of bovine subclinical mastitis by S. aureus in the lactation was economically not practicable.

Environmental protection measures, their evaluation (cost-benefit analysis) and their incorporation in development planning

Includes bibliography

Environmental, health and safety cost benefit analysis in the United States chemical industry

The purpose of this research project is to determine whether there is a cost/benefit to allocating financial and other company-related resources to improve environmental, health and safety performance beyond that which is required by law. The issue of whether a company benefits from spending dollars to achieve environmental, health and safety performance beyond legal compliance is an important issue to the chemical manufacturing industry in the United States because of the voluminous and complex legal requirements impacting environmental, health and safety expenditures. The cost/benefit issue has practical significance because many U.S. chemical manufacturing companies base their environmental, health and safety management strategies on just achieving and maintaining compliance with legal requirements when in reality this strategy may actually be a higher cost way of managing environmental, health and safety practices. This difference in environmental, health and safety management strategy is being investigated to determine if managing environmental, health and safety to achieve performance beyond that which is required by law results in a greater benefit to companies in the U.S. chemical manufacturing sector.

Cost-benefit analysis: The ``gold standard'' re-examined

The dissertation reviews the recommendations of the Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (Panel) convened by the US Public Health Service in 1993 in four areas: aggregation of costs and benefits, methods of estimating resources used, definition of population impacted and perspective used in cost benefit analysis. Financial data from a clinical trial was used to test whether different approaches in each of the above four areas would change the net benefit resulting from a cost benefit analysis. Differences in aggregation of cost and benefit resulted in the same net benefit, but not the same cost/benefit ratios. Differences in resource use estimation methods, population subgroups definitions and perspectives all produced different net benefits. Difference in perspective resulted in different and often opposing decisions as to whether the proposed intervention from the clinical trial should be implemented. ^