Cost-benefit analysis approach

Several measures are available to reduce indoor radon levels. Their application would depend on a cost-benefit analysis approach in accordance with the recommendahons of the Intemahonal Commission on Radiological Protechon (ICRP). The measures available include ... 

The most popular method of calculating safety is the cost-benefit analysis approach. It takes the present value of the costs of injury and death to people involved in the accident with costs of equipment damage. Accident rates of similar systems or industries are estimated using a regression model, and marginal probabilities are determined. All of this information is combined into the cost-benefit model. 

Conventional safety assessment methods and cost benefit analysis approaches can be used to prepare a safety case. As the safety culture in the offshore industry changes, more flexible and convenient risk assessment methods and decision making approaches can be employed to facilitate the preparation of a safety case. The UKOOA framework for risk related decision support can provide an umbrella under which various risk assessment and decision making tools are employed. 

Cost-benefit analysis uses monetary valuations of the morbidity and mortality consequences of diseases or interventions. This allows estimation of the absolute and relative net social benefit of intervention, calculated as the monetary value of the consequences of an intervention minus the direct costs. Any health or social care intervention with a net social benefit greater than zero (i.e. the benefits are greater than the costs) is worth undertaking. Two approaches have typically been used to value outcomes in monetary values. The first is the human capital approach, where the monetary value of benefit represents the value of changes in the amount or type of work done or use of leisure time as... 

In many cases, various risk-reduction alternatives will result in a tolerable level of risk. Cost-benefit analysis can be a useful tool in evaluating alternative approaches. Costs are generally straightforward and easy to estimate however, estimating benefits may be more difficult, requiring assumptions that allow all benefits to be expressed using a common basis, usually monetary. 

This paper will summarize briefly some work my colleagues and I at Decision Focus Incorporated have carried out for EPA to show how decision analysis might be used to assist decision making under TSCA ( 5). I will first briefly review the concepts of quantitative risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis to show how decision analysis fits with these concepts and provides a natural way of extending them. Then I will illustrate the approach using a case study on a specific chemical, perchloroethylene. 

Methodically devised and established methods (and criteria) of substance and process assessment and evaluation like risk analysis, toxicological and ecotoxi-cological analyses, life-cycle-analysis and cost-benefit analysis . But also much simpler approaches, which in practice play an important role for assessing formulations and snbstance properties (e.g. the nse of negative and/or positive lists). 

The basic approach for performing economic assessments of pharmaceutical products, as discussed above, has been adapted from the general methodology for cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis. 

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has evolved as a comprehensive approach to project evaluation, in which environmental factors, as well as economic and technical considerations (e.g. Cost Benefit Analysis), are given appropriate consideration in the decisionmaking process. The purpose of an EIA study is to determine the potential environmental, social and health effects of a proposed development. It attempts to define and assess the physical, biological and socio-economic effects, so that logical and rational decisions are made. The identification of possible alternative sites and/or processes may assist in the reduction of potential adverse impacts. 

For food safety purposes the overriding aim is that food contamination should be reduced to the lowest practicable level, bearing in mind the potential costs and benefits involved. Since it is difficult to establish cause and effect relationships following long-term (chronic) exposure at low concentrations, it may be necessary to base action on prudence rather than on proven harm to health. However, if this approach is to maintain the confidence of both consumers and producers of food, a rational evaluation of all relevant information is required so that the balance between the risks and benefits of veterinary drugs can be assessed. Information on the incidence of potentially harmful drug residues is fundamental to this cost-benefit analysis so too is the consumption of the commodities involved (particularly for susceptible consumers or those consumers who eat more). Account must also be taken of the potential fall in food production if a drug is controlled or prohibited, and also the animal health and welfare implications that may result from the restriction of an animal medicine for which there may be no effective alternative. 

The fourth core element, the maximin principle, is not implemented at all. On the contrary, there is a strong reliance in TSCA and in the implementation of the act on formal risk assessments and cost-benefit analysis, which more or less completely blocks complementary approaches, such as decision-making aiming at reducing the likelihood of the worst case becoming a reality. 

Ashford, N. (2007) The Legacy of the Precautionary Principle in US Law The Rise of Cost-Benefit Analysis and Risk Assessment as Undermining Factors in Health, Safety and Environmental Protection. In de Sadeleer, N. (ed.) Implementing the precautionary principle. Approaches from the Nordic Countries, EU and USA. London Earthscan. 

AspenTech has developed and applied quantitative cost-benefit analysis for engineering systems, including applied thermodynamics. The analysis, provided by Aspen Value Process (AVP), is a collaborative process yielding multi-level, broad commitment for business process changes enabled by software solutions. A key outcome of AVP is the customers validation of the estimated value. The financial information is highly sensitive and consequently there are no published cases available. Here, we present the basic approach and give typical quantitative assessment results. One could either carry out an extrapolation of this analysis to assess the industry-wide benefits (as is done below), or, alternatively, carry out a series of these assessments with specific producers. 

Although the cost-benefit analysis of nutrition intervention is weak, the issue that seems clear is that malnutrition is associated with significant morbidity and mortality in numerous disease states and clinical settings. Furthermore, it is likely that improved patient outcomes can be achieved by a systematic approach to identify the presence of risk factors for malnutrition, quantitate the degree of malnutrition, and initiate nutrition management. The clinician s responsibilities in the management of nutrition disease include the following ... 

The RIA thus encompasses both the information required for a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed rule, and for a determination of the cost-effectiveness of the regulatory approach incorporated therein. 

There are essentially three basic types of economic evaluation cost-benefit analysis (CBA), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA). The debate is still on going as to which of these approaches is to be preferred. 

The cost—benefit analysis (CBA) approach (Hundloe et al., 1990), which seeks to express impacts in monetary units, falls into the first category. It is a method of assessing the consequences of projects and actions, in which the estimated benefits are weighed against the costs. For this purpose, all consequences must be measured in the same unit, and the traditional choice of unit is money. To be explicitly included in a CBA, then, environmental changes must be valued in monetary terms. 

There are differences in the cost of different types of shielding materials and in the approach that is taken to provide adequate protection. A cost-benefit analysis is always appropriate in selecting or designing any experimental system. On the other hand, selecting too inexpensive an approach can be a false economy. The person making the decision may be the one injured or killed if the protection is insufficient. There is always the question of hability if others are injured and, finally, there is always the ethical question of what should have been done if one only did what was minimally required to be done and a person was injured as a result... 

Legislation which prescribes the use of one technology is unlikely to offer an optimum integrated approach in all cases and inevitably, by limiting the operator s flexibility, it increases costs. The most cost effective legislation sets end targets based on cost-benefit analysis, but it does not prescribe the mechanism for industry to use to achieve the target. 

ABSTRACT The increased use of wireless networks in schools has created concern among many parents and scientists is the low levels microwave radiation emitted by the transmitters harmful The scientific community does not provide a clear answer, there are uncertainties about the consequences of the radiation. This has raised the issue of applying the precautionary principle and switch off the wireless networks and use a safer alternative, for example a cable system. However, the decision-makers argue that the uncertainties and the risk need to be balanced with the benefits of the activity. Some type of cost-benefit analysis is required. But it is not obvious how such an analysis should he performed in a case like this, and the purpose of this paper is to present and discuss two possible approaches, one based on willingness to pay and one based on expected net present value calculations. 

---