Search

Objective: The study aim was to review the economic evaluation literature of commercially available and effective nonsurgical weight‐loss interventions to investigate whether there is evidence to support claims of cost‐effectiveness (i.e., good value for money) or cost savings (i.e., a positive return on investment). Methods: Relevant databases were systematically reviewed to identify economic evaluations of commercially available weight‐loss products and services shown to result in clinically significant weight loss. Five weight‐loss medications (orlistat, liraglutide, naltrexone‐bupropion, semaglutide, and phentermine‐topiramate), two meal replacement programs (Jenny Craig, Optifast), and one behavioral intervention (Weight Watchers [WW]) that met inclusion criteria were identified. After screening, 32 relevant comparisons of cost‐effectiveness or cost savings across 20 studies were identified. Results: Ten of twenty pharmaceutical comparisons showed evidence of cost‐effectiveness based on established thresholds. Four of twelve nonpharmaceutical comparisons provided evidence of cost‐effectiveness, and five made claims of cost savings. However, methodological concerns cast doubt on the robustness of these claims. Conclusions: Evidence of cost‐effectiveness for commercially available, evidence‐based, nonsurgical weight‐loss interventions is mixed. There is no evidence for cost‐saving weight‐loss medications and only weak evidence for behavioral and weight‐loss interventions. Results provide a call to action to generate more robust evidence of the economic value proposition for these interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This article argues that in cost–benefit analysis government should adopt the opportunity cost of capital as represented by the alternative project rate of return as the social discount rate rather than the private or social time discount rate or a weighted cost of funds rate that reflects estimated proportions of investment and consumption foregone. The appropriate metric for the alternative project rate of return is average market return allowing for non‐diversifiable risk but not for diversifiable project risk. The article concludes that the appropriate social discount rate for Australia, for all sectors and states and territories, is approximately 6.5 per cent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In conservation, as in most other subjects, there is a division of expenditure into problem identification, solution testing, and practice. However, research concentrates on problem identification rather than solution testing. We calculate the return on the investment of research (a PhD thesis) examining the effectiveness of conservation interventions for birds of prey in three European countries. We show that the economic return from investing in a PhD thesis could be substantial, in the order of hundreds of thousands euros over 10 years or a return on investment of between 292% and 326% over that period. We derived the values of return on investment by first setting a common biological target (the total number of raptor fledglings produced per year). We then compared overall costs in achieving such target via the wide implementation of the results from the thesis (i.e., allocating resources to the most effective intervention) versus a business as usual scenario. We identify other theses that also show considerable benefits in improving effectiveness. We suggest that further research examining effectiveness would be cost-effective in improving practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fences that exclude alien invasive species are used to reduce predation pressure on reintroduced threatened wildlife. Planning these continuously managed systems of reserves raises an important extension of the Single Large or Several Small (SLOSS) reserve planning framework: the added complexity of ongoing management. We investigate the long-term costefficiency of a single large or two small predator exclusion fences in the arid Australian context of reintroducing bilbies Macrotis lagotis, and we highlight the broader significance of our results with sensitivity analysis. A single fence more frequently results in a much larger net cost than two smaller fences. We find that the cost-efficiency of two fences is robust to strong demographic and environmental uncertainty, which can help managers to mitigate the risk of incurring high costs over the entire life of the project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conservation practitioners, faced with managing multiple threats to biodiversity and limited funding, must prioritize investment in different management actions. From an economic perspective, it is routine practice to invest where the highest rate of return is expected. This return-on-investment (ROI) thinking can also benefit species conservation, and researchers are developing sophisticated approaches to support decision-making for costeffective conservation. However, applied use of these approaches is limited. Managers may be wary of ''black-box'' algorithms or complex methods that are difficult to explain to funding agencies. As an alternative, we demonstrate the use of a basic ROI analysis for determining where to invest in cost-effective management to address threats to species. This method can be applied using basic geographic information system and spreadsheet calculations. We illustrate the approach in a management action prioritization for a biodiverse region of eastern Australia. We use ROI to prioritize management actions for two threats to a suite of threatened species: habitat degradation by cattle grazing, and predation by invasive red foxes (Vulpes vulpes). We show how decisions based on cost-effective threat management depend upon how expected benefits to species are defined and how benefits and costs co-vary. By considering a combination of species richness, restricted habitats, species vulnerability, and costs of management actions, small investments can result in greater expected benefit compared with management decisions that consider only species richness. Furthermore, a landscape management strategy that implements multiple actions is more efficient than managing only for one threat, or more traditional approaches that don't consider ROI. Our approach provides transparent and logical decision support for prioritizing different actions intended to abate threats associated with multiple species; it is of use when managers need a justifiable and repeatable approach to investment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]