1 / 14

Cost-effectiveness analysis

Cost-effectiveness analysis. November 2002 Aude Lenders, CESSE – ULB. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis . Introduction Results Presentation Benefit indicators Short-term versus long-term Cost variations Effectiveness variations Conclusions. 1. Introduction.

galya
Download Presentation

Cost-effectiveness analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cost-effectiveness analysis November 2002 Aude Lenders, CESSE – ULB

  2. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis • Introduction • Results • Presentation • Benefit indicators • Short-term versus long-term • Cost variations • Effectiveness variations • Conclusions

  3. 1. Introduction • Cost-effectiveness analysis spreadsheet: • Inputs: • Population exposure per scenario (« Instantaneous benefit ») as an output from EURANO or from the Extrapolation module. • Programme : set of noise reduction measures (=scenario) + implementation schedule (within a 10-years period). • Parameters : lifetime, costs, discount rates

  4. Outputs: • Net Present value of the Benefits = Number of persons who have gained a noise reduction thanks to the measures applied. [Persons*years]  “Effectiveness” • People exposed to noise above 60dB(A) • Annoyed people • Weighted people (f factor) • Net Present Value of the Costs in Euros • Efficiency = Present Benefits / Present Costs

  5. Benefit Function • PB = Net Present Value of S Benefits of each measure • S Interactions between measures • S For each year of the modeled period Interpolation of EURANO output: evolution of the benefits when supplementary units of the measure are implemented.

  6. Cost Function • PC = Net Present Value of Investment years 1 to 10 • Maintenance during lifetime of the measure • Removal at the end of the lifetime

  7. 700’000 Best efficiency Persons > 60dB Worst efficiency 14’000’000 Costs without windows insulation 2. Results

  8. b) Two indicators for the benefits : same results Same results for different indicators

  9. Variations in the ranking of the programmes Third indicator : number of people weighted (noise level and noise reduction) Same ranking of the programmes for ≠ weightings Uncertainties : the costs of the measures

  10. c) Two different approaches

  11. d) Costs variation according to the number of freight wagons (-25%)

  12. d) Variation according to the ratio “number of wagons/ km urban areas”

  13. e) Benefits variation:% freight trains & distribution of people

  14. Conclusions • Despite these small variations, all the graphs have generally the same appearance the results seem reliable. • Further study : • Other noise reducing measures • Other scenarios (combination of measures)

More Related