Application of the marginal cost approach and cost-benefit analysis to measures for avalanche risk reduction — A case study from Davos, Switzerland

2006 ◽  
pp. 155-168
Author(s):  
S Fuchs ◽  
M McAlpin ◽  
U Gruber ◽  
M Bründl
Keyword(s):  
Risk Reduction ◽  
Marginal Cost ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Approach ◽  
Avalanche Risk

scholarly journals The ALARP Principle in the Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Acceptability of Investment Risk

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 4668 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Nesticò ◽  
Shuquan He ◽  
Gianluigi De Mare ◽  
Renato Benintendi ◽  
Gabriella Maselli
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Risk Mitigation ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Investment Risk ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Mitigation Design ◽  
The Cost

The process of allocating financial resources is extremely complex—both because the selection of investments depends on multiple, and interrelated, variables, and constraints that limit the eligibility domain of the solutions, and because the feasibility of projects is influenced by risk factors. In this sense, it is essential to develop economic evaluations on a probabilistic basis. Nevertheless, for the civil engineering sector, the literature emphasizes the centrality of risk management, in order to establish interventions for risk mitigation. On the other hand, few methodologies are available to systematically compare ante and post mitigation design risk, along with the verification of the economic convenience of these actions. The aim of the paper is to demonstrate how these limits can be at least partially overcome by integrating, in the traditional Cost-Benefit Analysis schemes, the As Low as Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) logic. According to it, the risk is tolerable only if it is impossible to reduce it further or if the costs to mitigate it are disproportionate to the benefits obtainable. The research outlines the phases of an innovative protocol for managing investment risks. On the basis of a case study dealing with a project for the recovery and transformation of an ancient medieval village into a widespread-hotel, the novelty of the model consists of the characterization of acceptability and tolerability thresholds of the investment risk, as well as its ability to guarantee the triangular balance between risks, costs and benefits deriving from mitigation options.

Allocation of Environmental Remediation Funds Using Economic Risk-Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Case Study

1996 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 95-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce R. James ◽  
Dale D. Huff ◽  
John R. Trabalka ◽  
Richard H. Ketelle ◽  
Craig T. Rightmire
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Remediation ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Economic Risk ◽  
Risk Cost

scholarly journals Cost-benefit analysis of pharmacist interventions over 36 months in a university hospital

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 94
Author(s):  
Maurilio de Souza Cazarim ◽  
João Paulo Vilela Rodrigues ◽  
Priscila Santos Calcini ◽  
Thomas Einarson ◽  
Leonardo Régis Leira Pereira
Keyword(s):  
Marginal Cost ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Cost Ratio ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Net Benefit ◽  
Hospital Perspective ◽  
Benefit Cost Ratio ◽  
Tertiary Teaching

OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-benefits analysis of a clinical pharmacy (CP) service implemented in a Neurology ward of a tertiary teaching hospital. METHODS: This is a cost-benefit analysis of a single arm, prospective cohort study performed at the adult Neurology Unit over 36 months, which has evaluated the results of a CP service from a hospital and Public Health System (PHS) perspective. The interventions were classified into 14 categories and the costs identified as direct medical costs. The results were analyzed by the total and marginal cost, the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) and the net benefit (NB). RESULTS: The total 334 patients were followed-up and the highest occurrence in 506 interventions was drug introduction (29.0%). The marginal cost for the hospital and avoided cost for PHS was US$182±32 and US$25,536±4,923 per year; and US$0.55 and US$76.4 per patient/year. The BCR and NB were 0.0, -US$26,105 (95%CI -31,850 – -10,610), -US$27,112 (95%CI -33,160–11,720) for the hospital and; 3.0 (95%CI 1.97–4.94), US$51,048 (95%CI 27,645–75,716) and, 4.6 (95%CI 2.24–10.05), US$91,496 (95%CI 34,700–168,050; p < 0.001) for the PHS, both considering adhered and total interventions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The CP service was not directly cost-benefit at the hospital perspective, but it presented savings for forecast cost related to the occurrence of preventable morbidities, measuring a good cost-benefit for the PHS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document