@article{SurethKalkuhlEdenhoferetal.2023,
  author    = {Sureth, Michael and Kalkuhl, Matthias and Edenhofer, Ottmar and Rockstr{\"o}m, Johan},
  title     = {A welfare economic approach to planetary boundaries},
  series = {Jahrb{\"u}cher f{\"u}r National{\"o}konomie und Statistik},
  volume    = {243},
  journal   = {Jahrb{\"u}cher f{\"u}r National{\"o}konomie und Statistik},
  number    = {5},
  publisher = {De Gruyter Oldenbourg},
  address   = {Berlin},
  issn      = {0021-4027},
  doi       = {10.1515/jbnst-2022-0022},
  pages     = {477 -- 542},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {The crises of both the climate and the biosphere are manifestations of the imbalance between human extractive, and polluting activities and the Earth's regenerative capacity. Planetary boundaries define limits for biophysical systems and processes that regulate the stability and life support capacity of the Earth system, and thereby also define a safe operating space for humanity on Earth. Budgets associated to planetary boundaries can be understood as global commons: common pool resources that can be utilized within finite limits. Despite the analytical interpretation of planetary boundaries as global commons, the planetary boundaries framework is missing a thorough integration into economic theory. We aim to bridge the gap between welfare economic theory and planetary boundaries as derived in the natural sciences by presenting a unified theory of cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis. Our pragmatic approach aims to overcome shortcomings of the practical applications of CEA and CBA to environmental problems of a planetary scale. To do so, we develop a model framework and explore decision paradigms that give guidance to setting limits on human activities. This conceptual framework is then applied to planetary boundaries. We conclude by using the realized insights to derive a research agenda that builds on the understanding of planetary boundaries as global commons.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{HudsonBotzen2019,
  author    = {Hudson, Paul and Botzen, W. J. Wouter},
  title     = {Cost-benefit analysis of flood-zoning policies: A review of current practice},
  series = {Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews : Water},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews : Water},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {2049-1948},
  doi       = {10.1002/wat2.1387},
  pages     = {21},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {One commonly proposed method to limit flood risk is land-use or zoning policies which regulates construction in high-risk areas, in order to reduce economic exposure and its vulnerability to flood events. Although such zoning regulations can be effective in limiting trends in flood risk, they also have adverse impacts on society, for instance by limiting local development of areas near the water. In order to judge whether proposed land-use or zoning policies are a net benefit to society, they should be accepted or rejected based on a societal cost-benefit analysis (CBA). However, conducting a CBA of zoning regulation is complex and comprehensive guidelines of how to do such an analysis are lacking. We offer guidelines for good practice. In order to assess the costs and benefits of zoning as a climate change adaption strategy, they should be assessed at a societal level in order to account for public good features of flood risk reduction strategies, and because costs in one area can be benefits in another region. We propose a multistep process: first, determine the spatial extent of the zoning policy and how interconnected the zoned area is to other locations; second, conduct a CBA using monetary costs and benefits estimated from an integrated hydro-economic model to investigate if total benefits exceed total costs; third, conduct a sensitivity analysis regarding the main assumptions; fourth, conduct a multicriteria analysis (MCA) of the normative outcomes of a zoning policy. A desirable policy is preferred in both the CBA and MCA. This article is categorized under: Engineering Water > Planning Water Human Water > Value of Water Science of Water > Water Extremes Human Water > Methods},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ChungVongpatanasinBonaventuraetal.2014,
  author    = {Chung, Oliver and Vongpatanasin, Wanpen and Bonaventura, Klaus and Lotan, Yair and Sohns, Christian and Haverkamp, Wilhelm and Dorenkamp, Marc},
  title     = {Potential cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring in patients with resistant hypertension},
  series = {Journal of hypertension},
  volume    = {32},
  journal   = {Journal of hypertension},
  number    = {12},
  publisher = {Lippincott Williams \& Wilkins},
  address   = {Philadelphia},
  issn      = {0263-6352},
  doi       = {10.1097/HJH.0000000000000346},
  pages     = {2411 -- 2421},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {Background: Nonadherence to drug therapy poses a significant problem in the treatment of patients with presumed resistant hypertension. It has been shown that therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is a useful tool for detecting nonadherence and identifying barriers to treatment adherence, leading to effective blood pressure (BP) control. However, the cost-effectiveness of TDM in the management of resistant hypertension has not been investigated. Results: In the age group of 60-year olds, TDM gained 1.07 QALYs in men and 0.97 QALYs in women at additional costs of (sic)3854 and (sic)3922, respectively. Given a willingness-to-pay threshold of (sic)35 000 per QALY gained, the probability of TDM being cost-effective was 95\% or more in all age groups from 30 to 90 years. Results were influenced mostly by the frequency of TDM testing, the rate of nonresponders to TDM, and the magnitude of effect of TDM on BP. Conclusion: Therapeutic drug monitoring presents a potential cost-effective healthcare intervention in patients diagnosed with resistant hypertension. Importantly, this finding is valid for a wide range of patients, independent of sex and age.},
  language  = {en}
}