scholarly journals Regulating the Urban Commons: A Romanian Case Study of Improving Building Facades

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-198
Author(s):  
Anamaria Vrabie ◽  
Rodica Ianole-Călin
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Collective Actions ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Research Framework ◽  
Behavioural Insights ◽  
Available Information ◽  
Urban Commons ◽  
Mixed Property

This paper examines the effect of build environment regulations for facades emergency repairs and embellishment, as implemented by the city of Cluj-Napoca, the second largest municipality in Romania. The scope was to identify to what extent the over taxation measure was efficient in generating compliant behaviour and what secondary effects it may have generated in people’s attitude towards the local authorities. We conducted structured interviews with 25 homeowners targeted by the policy. The qualitative analysis uncovers structural issues on how the policy was implemented and communicated to the population. It further acknowledges difficulties in managing mixed property and collective actions. We interpret the findings as a first step towards building a more comprehensive research framework focused also on included behavioural insights, as captured by our recommendations. Namely, they illustrate that homeowners were critical about the measure, both in its rationale and its implementation, and were unable to act upon a cost-benefit analysis given the ambiguous available information. The findings further acknowledge difficulties in managing mixed property and collective actions, but they also hint favourably towards the role of peer effects, expressed here as compliant neighbours’ behaviour. We interpret the results of this exploratory case study as a first step towards building a more comprehensive approach to serve as a toolkit in examining the development of innovative local policies in post-communist environments, through a combined research framework including also the significant contribution of behavioural insights, next to the traditional rational actor theories. Naturally, the usual limitations of the method also apply to our study, in the sense of non-generalizable conclusions. This fuels up the need for further research on similar regional and urban challenges in an extended multiple-case study scheme.

Individualized cancer follow-up supported by electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes: Development and evaluation (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sissel Ravn ◽  
Henriette Vind Thaysen ◽  
Lene Seibaek ◽  
Victor Jilbert Verwaal ◽  
Lene Hjerrild Iversen
Keyword(s):  
Ct Scan ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
European Organization ◽  
Individualized Care ◽  
Patient Reported

BACKGROUND Cancer survivors experience unmet needs during follow-up. Besides recurrence, a follow-up includes detection of late side effects, rehabilitation, palliation and individualized care. OBJECTIVE We aimed to describe the development and evaluate the feasibility of an intervention providing individualized cancer follow-up supported by electronic patient-reported outcomes (e-PRO). METHODS The study was carried out as an interventional study at a Surgical and a Gynecological Department offering complex cancer surgery and follow-up for advanced cancer. The e-PRO screened for a priori defined clinical important symptoms and needs providing individualized follow-up. We included following questionnaires in the e-PRO; the general European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and the EORTC validated for colorectal and ovarian cancer patients. To support individualization, we included three prioritized issues of the patient’s preference in each e-PRO. The response-algorithm was aggregated based on the severity of the patient’s response. To ensure the sensitivity of the e-PRO, we performed semi-structured interviews with five patients. All clinicians (surgeons and gynecologists) performing the consultations reviewed the e-PRO. The evaluation was divided in two, 1)The feasibility was assessed by a)Patients’ response rate of the e-PRO, b)Number of follow-up visits documenting the use of e-PRO and c)Patients’ prioritized issues prior to the consultation(‘yes’ / ‘no’), and after the follow-up 2)Patients assessment of a)The need and purpose of the follow-up visit and b)the support provided during the follow-up visit. RESULTS In total, 187 patients were included in the study, of which 73%(n=136/187) patients responded to the e-PRO and were subjected to an individualized follow-up. The e-PRO was documented as applied in 79% of the follow-up visits. In total, 23% of the prioritized issues did not include a response. Stratified by time since surgery, significantly more patients did not fill out a prioritized issue had a follow-up >6 months since surgery. In total, 72 % follow-up visits were evaluated to be necessary in order to discuss the outcome of the CT scan, symptoms, and/or prioritized issues. Contrary, 19% of the follow-up visits were evaluated to be necessary only to discuss the result of the CT scan. A range from 19.3–56.3% of patients assessed the follow-up visit to provide support with respect to physical (42% of patients), mental (56%), sexual (19%) or dietary (27%) issues. Further, a range from 34–60% of the patients reported that they did not need support regarding physical (43% of patients), mental (34%), sexual (63%) or dietary (57%) issues. CONCLUSIONS An individualized follow-up based on e-PRO is feasible, and support most patients surgically treated for advanced cancer. However, results indicate that follow-up based on e-PRO may not be beneficial for all patients and circumstances. A thorough cost-benefit analysis may be warranted before implementation in routine clinic.

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

Information Technology Process Improvement Decision-Making

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 18-35
Author(s):  
Sandy A. Lamp ◽  
Kathleen M. Hargiss ◽  
Caroline Howard
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Process Improvement ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Investment Decision ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Insurance Company ◽  
Senior Leadership ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Process Managers

This article is derived from a qualitative multicase study with two settings that explored the way decisions are made in two IT organizations regarding process improvement initiatives by using face-to-face semi-structured interviews with 20 IT process owners and managers. The two participating organizations are a healthcare insurance company and a manufacturer of electronic interconnects. The study sought to uncover (a) how IT process improvements are prioritized and how approvals are attained, (b) how senior leadership is involved in decision making, (c) how security and risk are considered, (d) if and how formal process improvement methodologies are used, (e) if and how estimated and actual cost benefit analysis are conducted associated with decisions, and (f) how alignment with organizational goals is attained. The topic of IT governance was narrowed to explore the perspective of IT process owners and process managers, and their approaches and methodologies used with IT process improvement initiatives. The study found that pre-decision stages take place in IT investment decision making, and that process owners and process managers, participants other than senior leadership, and executive level decision makers are involved in these pre-decision stages and may be involved in the final decision stages.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document