以下是这篇成本效益分析（Cost Benefit Analysis）代写的范文，本文先对case进行简洁的描述，接下来便是对研究方法的优缺点的着重分析。最后便是limitation and suggestion。
Critical evaluation of the cost-benefit analysis of the proposed rule (36 CFR 219) for national forest land management planning
The aim of the essay is to provide a critical evaluation of the cost-benefit analysis of the proposed rule (36 CFR 219) for national forest land management planning. The essay will be divided into three parts. In the first part, a brief description of the chosen cost-benefit report will be presented. Then, the critical analysis of the cost-benefit analysis will be provided. In the final part, the conclusion of the evaluation of the essay will be drawn and some recommendations will be provided for the improvement of the report.
1. Introduction of the chosen study
The essay chooses the cost-benefit analysis of the proposed rule (36 CFR 219) for national forest land management planning as the research object. The aim of the proposed rule is to improve the process of developing, amending and revising the land management plans. To conduct a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis, the chosen report takes the financial impacts, regulatory impacts, efficiency and effectiveness impacts, and the environment effectiveness into consideration. Because the whole process of the land management is complicated, the cost-benefit analysis focuses the research on the key activities which relate to the planning framework. By using this methodology, the cost can be assigned to each of the relevant activities, which will make the cost-benefit analysis more logical. The conclusion of the analysis shows that the total cost of the proposed rule does not change a lot when comparing with the old rules. However, the cost structure has changed, which means the constitution of the detailed cost is changing.
cost benefit analysis代写
2. Critical evaluation of the cost-benefit analysis
In this part, the essay will conduct a critical evaluation of the choses cost-benefit analysis. The cost-benefit analysis will be evaluated in the following aspects: the background, structure, methodology used and perspectives considered. The detailed evaluation is demonstrated as follows.
2.1 The background of the text
The selected cost-benefit analysis provides a separate paragraph for the purpose and reasons for the analysis. It is important that the cost-benefits can provide quantitative estimates to those alternatives (Sassone& Schaffer, 1978). The direction of the analysis is also listed in this part. Following the purpose of the analysis, the description of the alternatives is also provided. In conclusion, the cost-benefit report does a great job in introducing the background of the study.
2.2 The structure of the text
The whole cost-benefit analysis is conducted in a professional and well-organized structure. The analysis provides the executive summary, introduction, description of alternatives, methodologies and the analytical results in a rational order. The clear structure will make it easier for the readers to obtain necessary information in the text.
2.3 The methodology of the text
The general idea of the cost-benefit analysis is comparing the cost and benefit of the proposed plan with four potential alternative plans to determine which is better. The comparison will make the result to be more intuitive and persuasive. Besides, as mentioned in the first part of this essay, the analysis divides the planning framework into three parts. Then the key activities of the three major parts will be analyzed and only the cost and benefit relating to these key activities will be considered. This methodology can help the research do a better quantification of the research objects. What’s more, the breakdown of the research objects will enable the researcher build a deeper understanding about the real reasons for the change of the total cost of benefit. The data used in this cost-benefit analysis all comes from the official channels such as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The high quality of the data used in the analysis will ensure the good quality of results of the analysis.
Although the current methodology of the text is good, there are still some negative aspects about the methodology. Firstly, it is mentioned in the analysis that only the direct programmatic effects will be included in the study. The indirect factors will not be taken into consideration because they are hard to be quantified. As a result, the final conclusion of the analysis may not represent the real results because the indirect factors are not included. Secondly, the classification of the three major stages and the determination of the key activities will require a lot of subject judgments. The accuracy of subject judgments will have an influence on the conclusion of the analysis.
2.4 The perspectives considered in the text
The selected analysis takes a comprehensive consideration when measuring the benefits and costs of the proposed plan. The analysis demonstrates the potential influences the proposed plan on the environment. There are many other cost-benefit analyses which do not take the environment into consideration. For example, the cost-benefit analysis of farm water storage conducted by Arshad, Qureshi and Jakeman does not mention the environment perspective (Arshad, etc., 2013). The environment needs to be taken into consideration because it is also one important stakeholder of the project.
3. Conclusion and recommendation
In conclusion, the selected cost-benefit analysis is of good quality. It has a well-organized structure, appropriate methodology and takes a comprehensive consideration when evaluating the target. However, there are also some limitations in the methodology which need to be further improved. It is recommended that a separate part about the limitations about the analysis should be included in the text. This will make the whole analysis more logical.
Reference:
Sassone, P. G., & Schaffer, W. A. (1978). Cost-benefit analysis: A handbook (Vol. 182). New York: Academic Press.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (2011). Cost-Benefit Analysis: The Proposed Rule (36 CFR 219) for National Forest Land Management Planning. The USDA website. Retrieved October 30, 2018, from http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5270248.pdf
Arshad, M., Qureshi, E., & Jakeman, A. (2013). Cost-benefit analysis of farm water storage: Surface Storage versus Managed Aquifer Storage.
EG1hao
