Search results

This study aims to capture the views of executives about the merit of using the two segmentation approaches (quantitative vs qualitative). Furthermore, this study aimed to examine costs and benefits for two different segmentation approaches, using a minimax simple cost-benefit analysis (CBA) matrix.

A total of 16 semistructured interviews were conducted with executives within the University of Sharjah (UoS). Furthermore, a minimax approach was applied to the CBA study.

Evidence in this study found that the financial cost of quantitative segmentation approaches was higher than qualitative approaches. However, the decision-makers trusted the quantitative approach more regardless of the incurred costs. The study also found that there was a limited knowledge about social marketing and segmentation among executives.

Limitations of this study relate to the methodology applied, the sample selected and the lead research. Another factor is selection bias, which limited this study to one organization’s executives. It is conceivable that middle-level management would have had the desire to participate because they make the recommendations to top management in decision-making. The researcher did not collect precise data on time taken to design, implement and analyses the two segmentation studies, which qualified the precision of the CBA. Also, the fact that the sample includes participants from a relatively narrow range of disciplines should be noted as a limitation of the study.

The current study provides a case study demonstrating how CBA provides a dollar amount estimate permitting alternate segmentation approaches to be compared and contrasted, assisting in the value estimation of any social marketing project.

The paper draws upon two streams of the literature: social marketing and CBA. The paper focused on the understanding of the literature, CBA offers a technique applicable to demonstrating cost savings that can be derived from choosing one method over another. Moreover, CBA assists in understanding the benefits or potential opportunity cost both financially and nonfinancially.

This paper presents one of the first studies conducting a CBA to compare and contrast two segmentation approaches in social marketing. The study provides interesting insights into the perceptions of management executives over alternative research methods, although the results are limited to a case study.

The paper aims to present an approach to cost-benefit analysis with stochastic data. Determining the type and the values of alternative’s factors are probably the most important issue in this approach. Therefore, in the proposed approach, a competitive advantage model was built to measure the values of alternative’s factors. Then, a satisfactory cost-benefit analysis model with random data was proposed to evaluate the alternatives. The cost-benefit analysis of each alternative was carried out to obtain the real and satisfactory cost-benefit of the decision-maker.

This paper is orientationally expressed as a mathematical problem in which the optimization problem needs to analyze the approach. This paper is written based on uncertainty linear optimization. Optimization under uncertainty refers to this branch of optimization where there are uncertainties involved in the data or the model and is popularly known as stochastic optimization problems.

As was seen in the purpose part, in this paper, an approach is presented to cost-benefit analysis by the use of competitive advantage with stochastic data. In this regards, a stochastic optimization problem to assess competitive advantage is proposed. This optimization problem recognizes the values of alternative’s factors which is the most important step in cost-benefit analysis. An optimization problem is proposed to cost benefit analysis, as well.

To investigate different aspects of the proposed approach, a case study with random data of 21 economic projects was considered.

Cost–benefit analysis is a systematic approach to estimating the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives used to determine options which provide the best approach to achieving benefits while preserving savings. Cost–benefit analysis is related to cost-effectiveness analysis. Benefits and costs are expressed in monetary terms and are adjusted for the time value of money; all flows of benefits and costs over time are expressed on a common basis in terms of their net present value, regardless of whether they are incurred at different times. As seen the paper using competitive advantage tries to determine the values of alternative’s factor. As competitive advantage model analyze the advantages and disadvantages of alternatives, this paper by the use of this idea tries to determine the costs and benefits. Two stochastic optimization problems in the middle of this approach are proposed, which assess competitive advantage and cost–benefit analysis, respectively.

A systems perspective of waste management allows an integrated approach not only to the five basic functional elements of waste management itself (generation, reduction, collection, recycling, disposal), but to the problems arising at the interfaces with the management of energy, nature conservation, environmental protection, economic factors like unemployment and productivity, etc. This monograph separately describes present practices and the problems to be solved in each of the functional areas of waste management and at the important interfaces. Strategies for more efficient control are then proposed from a systems perspective. Systematic and objective means of solving problems become possible leading to optimal management and a positive contribution to economic development, not least through resource conservation. India is the particular context within which waste generation and management are discussed. In considering waste disposal techniques, special attention is given to sewage and radioactive wastes.

This register of current research in social economics has been compiled by the International Institute of Social Economics. The register does not claim to be comprehensive but is merely an aid for research workers and institutions interested in social economics. The register will be updated and made more comprehensive in the future but this is largely dependent on the inflow of information from researchers in social economics. In order to facilitate this process a standardised form is to be found on the last page of this register. Completed forms, with attached sheets as necessary, should be returned to the compiler: Dr Barrie O. Pettman, Director, International Institute of Social Economics, Enholmes Hall, Patrington, Hull, N. Humberside, England, HU12 OPR. Any other comments on the register will also be welcome.

The main purpose of this study is to evaluate the social relevance of school transport in Flanders, Belgium, by using a social cost-benefit analysis (SCBA).

The use of a SCBA already showed to be an appropriate tool for the appraisal of transport projects as it generates a large amount of information on the investment and its return for society.

This paper clearly shows that organizing school transport is socially relevant, using a SCBA as a tool for evaluation. The analysis also provides insight in potential ways for improving school transport organization and financing and allows assessing whether further gains for society are possible. It reveals that the budget granted for the obligatory organization of school transport is not sufficient and that schools are generally forced to use part of their educational budget to be able to organize the (socially relevant) school transport.

Findings from this study can assist schools and organizers of school transport in improving their organization. It demonstrates the strengths and weaknesses of the investment.

Not many socio-economic evaluations of school transport have been done in literature. This study supports the use of SCBA within this context, further developing its use to answer similar research questions.

The purpose of this paper is to deal with one of the technical difficulties of private and social cost–benefit analysis, i.e. the choice of the proper cost–benefit aggregation rule (or method) to use, when a private capital investment decision has to be taken or a public project appraisal has to be carried out.

Although the considerable amount of existing literature, the problem of the choice of the right mathematical aggregation rule is still an open one. The majority of authors claim that net present value is a superior method and thus it is the one to be always used. Other authors try to show that various aggregation methods, under specific conditions, arrive at the same recommendation. An exceptional case is the field of education economics where the internal rate of return is widely used.

This paper offers a survey of this controversial topic which focuses on some clear cut formal properties of the various aggregation methods and considers the empirical characteristics of the different fields of application. Its main conclusion is that no “correct” aggregation rule, always applicable in all decision frameworks, can exist.

Its main objective is to supply clear guidelines to orient practitioners and help the teaching on this topic. Its main conclusion is that no “correct” aggregation rule, always applicable in all decision frameworks, can exist. On the contrary, even if one restricts her/himself to a particular class of investments, often no clear-cut selection can be made.