Benefit Cost Ratio

(redirected from Benefit-cost ratio)
Also found in: Medical, Wikipedia.

Benefit Cost Ratio

A ratio representing the benefits of a project or investment compared to its cost. The BCR may be a strictly financial ratio, comparing the expected return to the cost of investment, or it may account for approximations of qualitative measurements.
Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
While accounting for spillovers such as land reallocation raises the benefit-cost ratio for the programme across an array of scenarios, arguments exist that the programme's costs still outweigh the benefits.
Implication 4: Bureaucratic BCA focuses almost exclusively on the benefit-cost ratio (or related summary metrics) as a way to justify a desired policy or project, rather than using more detailed tools to understand the risk and uncertainty associated with various alternatives.
This ratio is called as the benefit-cost ratio in which it measures dollars saved per every dollars spent on intervention.
The Government's own figures showed that because of the economic climate, the benefit-cost ratio of the project (including wider economic benefits) had reduced slightly, although the figure still remained "convincing".
Matching these direct and indirect benefits against program costs provides a benefit-cost ratio for the action.
The above benefit-cost ratio should be 1 or higher.
Two common measures of benefit-cost performance are used, the benefit-cost ratio and the net present value (Net Present Value).
It enjoys a benefit-cost ratio in excess of 4:1 when the Department of Transport hurdle rate is just 2:1.
The average cost of treatment over the 9 months postbaseline was $1,583 ($3,336 unweighted) and the corresponding benefits were $11,487 (CI = $9,784, $13,180), for a benefit-cost ratio of more than 7:1, or 3:1 using unweighted costs.
Some authors caution against using a benefit-cost ratio approach, however, because deciding whether a given variable is considered a cost or a benefit can have a large impact on the final benefit-cost ratio (Drummond et al.
In September 2003, the DOT's research arm, the Volpe Center, estimated a benefit-cost ratio for mandatory installation of EFVs between 0.