This study reviews the literature and updates qualitative and quantitative impacts based on new research and applies a partial greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions cost benefit analysis to the Three Gorges Dam Project (TGDP) in China. The results of CBA suggested a 22.305 billion dollars net present value (using Nordhaus’s 2007 optimal carbon price trajectory with assumed average social discount rate (SDR) of 4% assumptions) and a 440.324 billion dollars net present value (based on Nordhaus’s Model using Stern’s assumption with 1% SDR). This sensitivity analysis indicates that social discount rates highly affect the final results. This study extends the GHG emissions impact component by updating carbon prices and calculation methods, thereby updating the GHG component of Morimoto and Hope’s 2004 study. Although the CBA is limited to the GHG component, a review of recent literature and preliminary impact analysis provides the groundwork for a more comprehensive analysis for future study.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Different cost effective design methods have been developed to reduce the cost of buildings, of which structural optimum design methods and cost effective designs methods using estimating data, are the most common. However, there is no record of the use of cost effective design methods in practice. Consequently, potential benefits of such methods remain untapped. This research evaluated the cost savings through cost effective design methods, identified difficulties involved in their use and examined favourable conditions for the implementation of such methods in design practice. The research aimed at investigating whether or not the opinion among practising designers, (structural engineers and architects) that "cost benefits through cost effective designs are insignificant and methods are not practical" is justified. Previous researchers have developed cost effective design methods, but very little has been done to change the opinion of building designers regarding these methods. A proper evaluation of cost effective design methods and a study of the design process are therefore necessary to gain the attention of designers in practice. The opinion among practising designers is that cost savings through optimum methods are less than 10% of elemental cost and 1% of total building cost. The analysis of cost savings of 22 historical buildings have shown that this is not the case. Optimum design methods using the computer to find the minimum cost from a set of feasible designs were developed for reinforced concrete elements; slabs, beams, columns and independent footing foundations. These optimum methods were applied to the design of 22 historical buildings. More than 10% of elemental cost savings were observed. 2.91% of total building cost can be saved using optimum methods for design of reinforced concrete elements, which is more than 45% of the total design fee of a building. The study proved that for a given building, probabilities of total building cost saving exceeding 1%, 2% and 3% are 0.96, 0.79 and 0.47 respectively. Design and build contracts provide not only a facility but also an incentive, to designers to use cost effective design methods. On the contrary, percentage fee contracts act as a disincentive. Therefore, the legal procedures in design practice, may sometimes serve as obstacles for the use of cost effective design methods. Furthermore, current design practice lacks motivating factors to designers to use cost effective design methods. Therefore building construction industry may need to pay additional fee to get benefits from cost effective design methods.

Thesis (doctoral)--Rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht.

Master of Agribusiness / Department of Agricultural Economics / Elizabeth Yeager / Crossbreeding has long been promoted as the preferred method of production for cow-calf producers. Unfortunately, crossbreeding can add complexity to maintain a consistent cowherd and can drive the need to purchase replacement females from outside the producer’s own herd. This has led some producers to pursue straightbreeding to provide their own supply of replacements and the opportunity to more narrowly select for individuals suited to a carcass quality grid marketing system. The subject of this thesis is a Red Angus based cowherd that breeds females to Red Angus sires in early parities. The same cowherd is bred to Simmental sires in later parities to produce a terminal F1 cross. It is the objective of this thesis to explore whether this operation’s straghtbred or crossbred calf crop provides an economic advantage to the other treatment. Mortality data were collected during pre-weaning for both steers and heifers. Mortality data were collected for steers during backgrounding and feedlot phases. Wean weights and feed conversion performance during the backgrounding phase was unavailable for use in this study. Feedlot and carcass data were captured for steers from both treatments. The straightbred treatment showed an advantage in carcass quality. The composite treatment showed a slight advantage in mortality cost during pre-weaning and feedlot phase, and a slight advantage in feed conversion and cost per pound of gain while in the feedlot. The composite treatment showed a significant disadvantage during the backgrounding phase. The primary advantage for the composite treatment was the difference in actual wean weights. This difference in wean weight carried over to a higher start weight during the feedlot phase. This was the driving factor in providing the composite group the economic advantage in this study and making it the more attractive production option.

Each year approximately 7,500 low-income Virginia families are enrolled in the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP), administered through the Virginia Cooperative Extension (VCE). Chronic disease and health conditions cost society an estimated $250 billion each year in medical charges and lost productivity. It has been assumed that the numerous diet and food-related changes made by EFNEP participants will lead to a reduction in the risk of chronic disease among homemakers, and perhaps, other family members. Thus, the improved diets and behaviors resulting from EFNEP participation may result in substantial future savings in healthcare costs among participants. This study explores the possibility of potential economic benefits for the Virginia EFNEP participants. In 1996, the Virginia Cooperative Extension was awarded a grant from the Cooperative State, Research, Education, and Extension Service, United States Department of Agriculture (CSREES, USDA) to conduct a cost-benefit study of EFNEP in Virginia. Though computation of the cost-benefit ratio for the Virginia adult EFNEP includes both direct and indirect benefits, this study addressed only the assessment of the direct tangible benefits based on the savings from economic costs of avoided diseases. Existing EFNEP data for the 1996 fiscal year was used to identify optimal nutritional behaviors that can delay or prevent the onset of certain chronic diseases and health conditions. The economic costs of diseases were identified from scientific literature and translated as potential benefits. The administration costs of EFNEP were also compiled. The total direct tangible benefit for the diseases and conditions identified was estimated to be $17,770,722. Along with the indirect tangible benefits ($321,462), the total tangible benefits for the Virginia EFNEP was calculated to be $18,092,184. The direct tangible costs associated with the Virginia EFNEP in 1996 was $1,922,204. The benefit-cost ratio for the Virginia EFNEP for the 1996 fiscal year for the subset of the population practicing the optimal nutritional behaviors is calculated at $9.41/$1.00 (a $9.41 return for every $1 invested in EFNEP in Virginia). Also, a benefit of $2.45 to $1.00 was calculated when only 25% of those participants practicing optimal nutritional behaviors were assumed retain these behaviors through life. For a program of the magnitude of EFNEP, these results are very gratifying. / Ph. D.

Reducing inefficiencies without compromising quality is a major challenge facing college and university leaders. Measuring efficiency and quality is often addressed through various statistical analyses (Archibald & Feldman, 2008; Flegg, Allen, & Thurlow, 2004). Researchers have also applied cost benefit analysis to measure efficiency. Collaboration is one mechanism used by university personnel to enhance efficiency and quality (Wiley, 2008). The literature on collaboration includes collaboration in research (Rigby & Elder, 2005), teaching (Kezar, 2005; Letterman & Dugan, 2004), and cross-divisional collaboration, learning communities (O’Connor & Associates, 2003). Residential colleges (where faculty live and work in residence halls) are another form of collaboration emerging across college campuses. A thorough review of the literature reveals no studies exploring the costs and benefits of residential colleges. The purpose of this study was to understand and describe the costs and benefits of residential colleges. The theoretical framework for this study was based on Nas’ (1996) cost benefit analysis framework. Data were collected through 60-90 minute telephone interviews with live-in faculty leaders of residential colleges and chief housing officers on campuses that offer residential colleges. Participants came from 11 different campus and included 12 chief housing officers and 11 faculty members. There are substantial institutional and individual costs associated with starting and maintaining a residential college. Institutional costs include departmental financial implications for facility renovations, staffing, and faculty incentives. Faculty principals and students bear individual costs. Impact on research, intensive time requirements for the position, and lack of recognition are costs affecting faculty. Residential college (RC) students incur additional fees and non-RC students are impacted by a diminished residential experience (as compared to their RC peers). Conversely, there are significant benefits resulting from residential colleges that may mitigate these costs. Institutions benefit from improved faculty pedagogy, expanded learning opportunities for students, and increased faculty connection to the institution. Individual benefits include positive faculty and student relationships (for faculty and students), increased understanding of students (for faculty), and faculty housing and other related incentives. / Ph. D.

Reducing inefficiencies without compromising quality is a major challenge facing college and university leaders. Measuring efficiency and quality is often addressed through various statistical analyses (Archibald and Feldman, 2008; Flegg, Allen, and Thurlow, 2004). Researchers have also applied cost benefit analysis to measure efficiency. Collaboration is one mechanism used by university personnel to enhance efficiency and quality (Wiley, 2008). The literature on collaboration includes collaboration in research (Rigby and Elder, 2005), teaching (Kezar, 2005; Letterman and Dugan, 2004), and cross-divisional collaboration, learning communities (O'Connor and Associates, 2003). Residential colleges (where faculty live and work in residence halls) are another form of collaboration emerging across college campuses. A thorough review of the literature reveals no studies exploring the costs and benefits of residential colleges. The purpose of this study was to understand and describe the costs and benefits of residential colleges. The theoretical framework for this study was based on Nas' (1996) cost benefit analysis framework. Data were collected through 60-90 minute telephone interviews with live-in faculty leaders of residential colleges and chief housing officers on campuses that offer residential colleges. Participants came from 11 different campus and included 12 chief housing officers and 11 faculty members. There are substantial institutional and individual costs associated with starting and maintaining a residential college. Institutional costs include departmental financial implications for facility renovations, staffing, and faculty incentives. Faculty principals and students bear individual costs. Impact on research, intensive time requirements for the position, and lack of recognition are costs affecting faculty. Residential college (RC) students incur additional fees and non-RC students are impacted by a diminished residential experience (as compared to their RC peers). Conversely, there are significant benefits resulting from residential colleges that may mitigate these costs. Institutions benefit from improved faculty pedagogy, expanded learning opportunities for students, and increased faculty connection to the institution. Individual benefits include positive faculty and student relationships (for faculty and students), increased understanding of students (for faculty), and faculty housing and other related incentives. / Ph. D.