nep-ppm New Economics Papers
on Project, Program and Portfolio Management
Issue of 2023‒11‒20
eight papers chosen by
Arvi Kuura, Tartu Ülikool

  1. Public-private partnerships for the circular bio-economy in the Global South: lessons learned By Taron, Avinandan; Majumder, A.; Bodach, Susanne; Agbefu, Dzifa
  2. A Common Data Environment for Biodiversity Integration in Real Estate Development By Mihaela Meslec; Chiara Catalano
  3. Road to Net Zero: Greenness of LEED and CAL-Green Properties By Jeonghyun Chung; Michael Cusumano; Dongshin Kim; Abraham Park
  4. Human Reliability Assessment method applied to investigate human factors in NDT -- The case of the interpretation of radiograms in the French nuclear sector By Justin Larouze; Etienne Martin; Pierre Calmon
  5. Open for business: pathways to strengthen CGIAR's responsible engagement with the private sector By Cummings, S.; Koerner, J.; Schut, M.; Lubberink, R.; Minh, Thai; Spielman, D.; Vos, J.; Kropff, M. (Ed.); Leeuwis, C. (Ed.).
  6. Private investment in public urban space: Dutch real estate developer and investor motivations and conditions By Remy van de Gaar; Erwin Heurkens
  7. A prototype software framework for transparent, reusable and updatable computational health economic models By Matthew P Hamilton; Caroline X Gao; Glen Wiesner; Kate M Filia; Jana M Menssink; Petra Plencnerova; David Baker; Patrick D McGorry; Alexandra Parker; Jonathan Karnon; Sue M Cotton; Cathrine Mihalopoulos
  8. The intellectual spoils of war? Defense R&D, productivity, and international spillovers By Moretti, Enrico; Steinwender, Claudia; Van Reenen, John

  1. By: Taron, Avinandan (International Water Management Institute); Majumder, A.; Bodach, Susanne (International Water Management Institute); Agbefu, Dzifa (International Water Management Institute)
    Keywords: Resource recovery; Resource management; Reuse; Circular economy; Bioeconomy; Public-private partnerships; Developing countries; Case studies; Waste management; Solid wastes; Recycling; Composting; Organic wastes; Organic fertilizers; Bioenergy; Biogas; Briquettes; Business models; Markets; Scaling up; Appropriate technology; Innovation; Financial analysis; Risk management; Policies; Regulations; Legal frameworks; Economic viability; Feasibility studies; Project
    Date: 2023
  2. By: Mihaela Meslec; Chiara Catalano
    Abstract: Integrating biodiversity considerations into urban development projects has become increasingly important for developers, as it contributes to ecosystem services and supports occupiers’ well-being. Moreover, despite the increasing regulation (ESG, EU Taxonomy, SDGs) there are very few successful projects because there is a lack of methods to effectively manage and integrate complex and diverse data from various sources, such as urban ecology, environmental impact assessments, biodiversity surveys or spatial planning data. Based on emerging technologies, a common data environment (CDE) can provide a solution to manage and integrate these data sets effectively. In this paper, we explore the potential of a CDE for biodiversity integration in a Swiss Real Estate Development project. We employed a mixed-methods research approach, incorporating one case study, action research, and iterations to create a minimum viable product (MVP) for testing the technical solution. Additionally, we analysed the potential business case for a CDE in managing biodiversity data and supporting biodiversity integration in real estate projects. Upon examination of the project documentation, it has been observed that the incorporation of biodiversity into real estate development projects is impeded by the insufficient specification of the data requirements, integration, and management of biodiversity. Additionally, the study found that the absence of a business case for developers that incorporates ecosystem services is a significant obstacle to the integration of biodiversity in urban development. This can be attributed to the lack of a business case for developers that incorporates ecosystem services. To address both issues, a collaborative data environment (CDE) can serve as a potential solution by enabling the sharing, collaboration, and management of biodiversity data. For this purpose, an Eco-Module was developed which contain enhanced ecological data such as animal species distribution, habitat and vegetation types as part of the ecological data requirements. Three GeoBIM technological solutions were explored and tested using a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) approach to integrate GIS-specific biodiversity data sets such as shapefiles and raster data with the BIM model. Furthermore, the study has investigated the added value for real estate owners/investors by recommending to further use the data to quantify the overall benefits of eco-services as a base for a solid business case. The incorporation of ecosystem services in the business case for developers can incentivize biodiversity integration in real estate development. A common data environment can provide an effective solution for managing and integrating complex and diverse biodiversity data sets from different scales. The added value comes from the data analysis and ecological simulations such as habitat suitability and species distribution models. In addition, hydrological and climatic data can enrich the CDE. By implementing an ecologically enriched CDE with dedicated Eco-Modules, the platform can raise awareness during the lifecycle of the project on important ecological issues, showing the potential use of biodiversity information for landscape-architectural-urban design and concrete financial and environmental benefits to decision-makers.
    Keywords: Common Data Environment; Ecosystem services; Real Estate Development; Urban Biodiversity
    JEL: R3
    Date: 2023–01–01
  3. By: Jeonghyun Chung; Michael Cusumano; Dongshin Kim; Abraham Park
    Abstract: According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the real estate sector is associated with about 39% of national total energy consumption, with an attendant share of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. To support sustainability in the built environment, those certified under platforms such as LEED, BREEAM, Energy Star, Green Star, and CAL-Green, purport to promote responsible environmental design in reducing scarce resource consumption. In the past, lack of access to actual energy consumption data, especially in the multi-family housing sector, has hindered efforts to determine the true effectiveness of sustainability designs and certifications. This research investigates the effectiveness of LEED and CAL-Green certifications in California by analyzing actual energy consumption data from large scale sustainably designed housing developments that have been built under LEED and/or CAL-Green design criteria and comparing them to a benchmark set of non-sustainably designed housing projects in the same general geographic location. Under California Assembly Bill AB 802, California is the first state in the US with a benchmarking program that requires the reporting of energy consumption for certain large size multi-family housing projects starting in 2019. The benchmark energy data provides the total annual carbon dioxide associated with building operations on a square foot basis when the consumption of all fuel sources is accounted for. The benchmark data provides approximately 7, 092 multifamily buildings’ energy emission information from 2019 to 2021 and the sum of gas and energy usage level per square footage of building size (total greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity) is our key variable of interest. We additionally use the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) data to identify whether or not a building is LEED-certified. USGBC provides the LEED certified building information such as LEED application date, LEED certified status (approved or not), LEED class (Platinum, Gold, Silver, Certified), building address, building type, building size, and built year. There are 670 LEED-certified multifamily and multifamily affordable housing projects in the state of California. However, 113 buildings are classified as confidential, which does not provide any property information other than LEED-certified status. While benchmark data provides data at a project level, USGBC provides data at the building level: one project can have multiple buildings (e.g., Building A, Building B). Thus, we sort the USGBC LEED data using building address and key property characteristics to bundle buildings to project level. Specifically, we assume that buildings are identified as the same project if building’s project name, zip code, and LEED-certified level (Platinum, Gold, Silver, Certified) are the same. After cleaning the data, we find 298 unique projects that are LEED certified, of which 101 projects are matched with the benchmark data using project name, address, and building characteristics. The results from our empirical examinations show that LEED buildings do not produce significantly lower levels of GHG emissions compared to non-LEED buildings. More interestingly, we find that LEED buildings generate 17.30 to 20.81% higher levels GHG emissions than non-LEED buildings during post-Cal-Green period (from year 2015). These results are robust even after considering the occupancy rates (stabilization period). We also propensity-score match the data between LEED and non-LEED and the results are still consistent. On the other hand, Cal-Green is effective in reducing the GHG emissions by 7.16% to 7.88% compared to pre Cal-Green period. In addition, we find that smaller buildings consume considerably more energy and emit more greenhouse gas per square foot than larger buildings. The final consideration from this research is that to achieve the Net–Zero greenhouse gas emissions that California and the world has targeted, the building industry and the regulators must reexamine and improve the design standards for built environments.
    Keywords: Green House Gas; LEED; Multifamily; Sustainable Design
    JEL: R3
    Date: 2023–01–01
  4. By: Justin Larouze (ICMCB); Etienne Martin (ICMCB); Pierre Calmon (LMC)
    Abstract: This communication reports on a study carried out in the context of the collaborative FOEHN project (Human and Organizational Factors in Non-Destructive Evaluation) supported by the French National Research Agency. The motivation of this project comes from the observation that human and Organizational factors (HOF) are not sufficiently considered by the NDT community. Its goal is to analyse and model the influence of the HOF on selected cases of study in the perspective of a better evaluation of the performance of inspections. The communication is focused on a radiographic test (RT) case of study in which it appeared that several successive inspections had failed to detect an existing in-service defect. The analysis and modelling of HOF related to interpretation of films has been achieved in the framework of the CREAM (Cognitive and Reliability and Error Analysis Method). A survey has been conducted during the training and the maintaining of the proficiency of NDT (Non Destructive Testing) operators. This was followed by a non-participant observation of operators on site and several individual interviews including a sample of people covering the main organizational and hierarchical roles (eg. project management, management, operations, invigilation). The exchange with the HOF experts resulted in a hierarchical analysis of ''radiogram interpretation'' tasks (31 sub-tasks) and a list of contextual and organizational factors that may affect the performance of interpretation of films by the operator. From such a description the CREAM method allows to determine critical tasks and probability of ``errors'' linked to a limited set of ``Common Performance Conditions'' (CPC). The first conclusions of this study are that the model CREAM seems well-adapted to the estimation of the impact of HOF on NDT performances. The next phases should be to apply it to other tasks (here only radiograph interpretation) and techniques. The expected benefit of this study is to provide tools for the evaluation and optimisation of NDT implementation.
    Date: 2023–10
  5. By: Cummings, S.; Koerner, J.; Schut, M.; Lubberink, R.; Minh, Thai (International Water Management Institute); Spielman, D.; Vos, J.; Kropff, M. (Ed.); Leeuwis, C. (Ed.).
    Keywords: Private sector; CGIAR; Public-private partnerships; Governance; Risk management; Multi-stakeholder processes; Research programmes; Innovation scaling; Investment; Institutions; Policies; Funding; Climate services; Sustainable Development Goals; Farmers
    Date: 2022
  6. By: Remy van de Gaar; Erwin Heurkens
    Abstract: Private investment in and management of public urban space has been a subject of practice and debate in real estate studies and industry in recent years (De Magelhães & Freire Trigo, 2017; Le Clercq et al., 2020). Such mainly Anglo-Saxon endeavours can be explained by an continuous austerity era of government retrenchments in urban planning and expanding private sector-led urban development practices (Heurkens, 2012). Moreover, real estate developers and investors are increasingly aware of the economic added value of attractive public space for their assets and the potential benefits of public space investment and management (Urban Land Institute, 2018). Whilst previous studies focused on the implications of private investment for public space governance arrangements, publicness safeguarding mechanisms, or private sector business benefits, little research has been conducted on the actual reasons for real estate developers and investors to pay for the public realm. Therefore, this research (Van de Gaar, 2023) aims to explore the possibilities of extra voluntarily private investment in the public space of urban regeneration projects, by studying the main conditions and motivations. In order to do so, we conducted a literature review resulting in an adapted conceptual framework from De Magelhães & Freire Trigo (2017) which we specifically applied to the Dutch real estate practice. Based on two qualitative research methods, semi-structured interviews with eighteen real estate professionals and an expert panel validation session, the following results are distilled. In terms of motivations, our study reveals that the location and immediate surrounding is decisive for real estate companies’ willingness to extra invest in public space, as these investments do not pay off as much everywhere and are conditioned by the financial viability of urban regeneration project itself. Additionally, real estate companies indicate that ESG business objectives are increasingly important in investment decisions, with public space functioning as potential tangible means and proof. In terms of conditions, real estate developers and investors indicate that control over assigning rights, distributing responsibilities and shaping characteristics of the investment in public space is decisive. They want to be able control how extra investments are spent to ensure that their own company vision and the development concept for the project is realised to a sufficient degree. The biggest challenge in making public-private agreements about the extra investments are local authority public space standardisation regulations that hinder customization. Additionally, the lack of proven private management instruments for the use phase currently directs Dutch developers and investors to full legal ownership of public space as the only (limited) solution. Based on the above empirical findings, this research illustrates that it is not possible to determine an ‘ideal framework’ for the distribution of roles and responsibilities for private public space investment and subsequently the management thereof, as public space is non-generic in nature. Nevertheless this research indicates possible conditions under which real estate companies are willing and able to extra invest in public space, thereby seeking collaborations with the public sector and establishing attractive public spaces to the potential benefit of both organisations and users alike. Scientifically, our study adds new insights about the importance of private sector investment considerations into public-private agreements besides those that safeguard the publicness of urban spaces. Research limitations include the external validity (generalisability) of the findings beyond the Dutch institutional real estate practice, and the internal validity due to the limited triangulation and qualitative nature of methods used.
    Keywords: Management; Public Space; Real Estate Investment; Urban Regeneration
    JEL: R3
    Date: 2023–01–01
  7. By: Matthew P Hamilton; Caroline X Gao; Glen Wiesner; Kate M Filia; Jana M Menssink; Petra Plencnerova; David Baker; Patrick D McGorry; Alexandra Parker; Jonathan Karnon; Sue M Cotton; Cathrine Mihalopoulos
    Abstract: Most health economic analyses are undertaken with the aid of computers. However, the ethical dimensions of implementing health economic models as software (or computational health economic models (CHEMs)) are poorly understood. We propose that developers and funders of CHEMs share ethical responsibilities to (i) establish socially acceptable user requirements and design specifications; (ii) ensure fitness for purpose; and (iii) support socially beneficial use. We further propose that a transparent (T), reusable (R) and updatable (U) CHEM is suggestive of a project team that has largely fulfilled these responsibilities. We propose six criteria for assessing CHEMs: (T1) software files are open access; (T2) project team contributions and judgments are easily identified; (R1) programming practices promote generalisability and transferability; (R2) licenses restrict only unethical reuse; (U1) maintenance infrastructure is in place; and (U2) new releases are systematically retested and appropriately deprecated. To facilitate CHEMs that meet TRU criteria, we have developed a prototype software framework in the open-source programming language R. The framework comprises six code libraries for authoring CHEMs, supplying CHEMs with data and undertaking analyses with CHEMs. The prototype software framework integrates with services for software development and research data archiving. We determine that an initial set of youth mental health CHEMs we developed with the prototype software framework wholly meet criteria T1-2, R1-2 and U1 and partially meet criterion U2. Our assessment criteria and prototype software framework can help inform and improve ethical implementation of CHEMs. Resource barriers to ethical CHEM practice should be addressed by research funders.
    Date: 2023–10
  8. By: Moretti, Enrico; Steinwender, Claudia; Van Reenen, John
    Abstract: We examine the impact of government funding for R&D—and defense-related R&D in particular—on privately conducted R&D, and its ultimate effect on productivity growth. We estimate longitudinal models that relate privately funded R&D to lagged government-funded R&D using industry-country level data from OECD countries and firm level data from France. To deal with the potentially endogenous allocation of government R&D funds we use changes in predicted defense R&D as an instrumental variable. In many OECD countries, expenditures for defense-related R&D represent by far the most important form of public subsidies for innovation. In both datasets, we uncover evidence of “crowding in” rather than “crowding out, ” as increases in government-funded R&D for an industry or a firm result in significant increases in private sector R&D in that industry or firm. On average, a 10% increase in government-financed R&D generates a 5% to 6% additional increase in privately funded R&D. We also find evidence of international spillovers, as increases in government-funded R&D in a particular industry and country raise private R&D in the same industry in other countries. Finally, we find that increases in private R&D induced by increases in defense R&D result in productivity gains.
    JEL: J1
    Date: 2023–02–06

This nep-ppm issue is ©2023 by Arvi Kuura. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.