ORCID Profile
0000-0001-9316-6971
Current Organisations
Deakin University Geelong - Waterfront Campus
,
The University of Auckland
,
University College London
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 20-05-2019
Publisher: Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
Date: 24-09-2018
Abstract: Demand for the construction of retirement villages is increasing with the worldwide growth in ageing populations. However, the development of retirement villages can be impeded by many factors, such as limited available land and high investment costs. Public–private partnership (PPP) as an alternative financing mechanism has been widely applied in the construction of public infrastructure projects and may provide new funding sources for building retirement villages. By applying PPP to the construction of retirement villages, the independent living requirements of seniors can be met and the financial difficulty of the construction of retirement villages can be resolved. Similar to other PPP projects, when retirement villages are constructed under a PPP process, the concession period is a key decision variable in relation to the success of the project. The concession period is stated in the project contract between the government and private investors, and stipulates the date when the project ownership and operation are transferred from the private investor back to the government. The government should take detailed information into consideration at the initial project stage when determining the concession period. This paper proposes PPP as a new procurement method to be applied to the construction of rental retirement villages and develops a concession period determination process for PPP retirement village projects with consideration of real options, focusing on the option to defer. An empirical ex le with alternative scales, which is developed from an existing retirement village in Geelong, Australia, is used to numerically verify the process and the impacts of key variables on the concession period. The determination process provides an alternative tool for governments to design the concession period before the tendering stage and will benefit the development of industries associated with services for the ageing population. This process can also be applied to the construction of other financially non-viable PPP projects such as social housing.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 13-03-2020
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 22-10-2022
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2022
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2022
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2021
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2021
Publisher: EJournal Publishing
Date: 2020
Publisher: Emerald
Date: 17-07-2019
DOI: 10.1108/ECAM-05-2018-0201
Abstract: Targeting public–private partnership (PPP) projects, the purpose of this paper is to help decision makers fairly allocate financial risk between governments and private investors through a properly designed length of concession period. On the one hand, the length of the concession period should be long enough to help private investors to achieve their expected profits. On the other hand, the length of a concession period cannot be decided without agreeing on an upper limit, since an overlong concession period takes too much time for governments to recover their investment and leads to an overly lucrative condition for private investors. Following this logic, the concession period decision range is decided, which defines the lower and upper limits for the length of the concession period. The net present values (NPVs) for governments and private investors are estimated via Monte Carlo simulation to better reflect the uncertainties. To further decide on the optimal length of the concession period, the principle of fair risk allocation between governments and private investors is adopted. The concession period, as an important project parameter, should help to minimize the financial risk gap between governments and private investors. The developed concession period determination process is validated using a numerical ex le of a PPP transportation project. The analysis outcomes show that the proposed methodology is capable of determining the length of the concession period so as to control private investors’ profit within a reasonable range while achieving a fair allocation of financial risk between governments and private investors. The outcomes also indicate that, before determining the optimal length for the concession period, governments may need to make a choice between better financial risk allocation or stringent profit control for private investors. The determination process developed here may be inapplicable to social infrastructure PPPs where the income stream is less predictable. In addition, the data analysis targets a highway project with a capital subsidy provided by the government. To strengthen the effectiveness of the proposed determination process, further research should apply the model to PPPs with other kinds of government support. The concession period for a PPP project is an important parameter and it is a common practice for governments to predetermine the length of the concession period before inviting tenders. The existing models for determining the concession period focus too much on the simulation of NPVs for project parties and neglect the importance of risk allocation in signing and maintaining a long-term contract. There is also a lack of research to evaluate the influence of governments’ preferences on the length of the concession period. To overcome the limitations of the existing models and enrich the methodology for concession period determination, this paper contributes to the body of knowledge by developing a concession period determination process which can help governments to make better decisions. The financial risk is expected to be more evenly shared between governments and private investors with the concession period derived from the proposed process. This determination process is also capable of evaluating the influence of governments’ preferences on the length of the concession period.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 20-12-2021
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2018
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2022
Publisher: Emerald
Date: 14-12-2021
DOI: 10.1108/ECAM-06-2019-0311
Abstract: Considering there is a lack of research in determining the optimal levels of government guarantee and revenue cap, the objective of this research is to determine their optimal levels to achieve a reasonable financial risk allocation between governments and private investors while avoiding overly lucrative conditions for private investors. Expanded net present value (NPV) analysis and bargaining game theory are employed to construct the core of the determination process. The risk gap between governments and private investors is assessed via an expanded NPV analysis to see if the financial risk has been shared reasonably, based on which the range of the government guarantee is decided. A bargaining model is then created to help locate the optimal level of the government guarantee. Finally, a revenue cap, often combined with the government guarantee in public–private partnership (PPP) agreements, will be determined if overly lucrative conditions for private investors are observed or governments suffer a risk spillover. Referring to a real PPP project in Australia, Project BA is created to validate the applicability of the proposed determination process. The outcome shows that the proposed determination process in this paper is capable of determining the optimal levels of government guarantee and revenue cap. The government preferences towards risk allocation will influence the values of the optimal levels. Governments may also consider to alleviate the control over investors' net profits to mobilise private investors into PPP projects. There is a potential possibility that the revenue cap fails to control the financial risk for governments or the overly lucrative condition for private investors. In other words, even though the revenue cap is set at the minimal level, the financial risk for governments still beyond their tolerance range or the overly lucrative condition for private investors still occurs. Future research may focus on other financial protective schemes which help to better control the financial risks for governments and profits for private investors. Government guarantees are frequently used as an investment incentive to reduce the probabilities of suffering loss for private investors. Nevertheless, the financial risks for governments may increase after providing guarantees and, as a result, revenue cap is required by governments to avoid placing themselves in an unprotected situation. By recognising the importance of the two contractual parameters, many scholars dig into their option values. However, there are very rare research works focussing on the method of determining the specific levels of government guarantee and revenue cap. To overcome the limitations of existing models and enrich the methodology for government guarantee and revenue cap determination, this paper contributes to the body of knowledge by developing a government guarantee and revenue cap determination process which contributes to a reasonable allocation of financial risks between governments and private investors.
Publisher: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Date: 05-2020
Publisher: American Society of Civil Engineers
Date: 28-08-2019
Publisher: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Date: 02-2023
Publisher: Emerald
Date: 04-07-2019
DOI: 10.1108/ECAM-01-2019-0063
Abstract: Targeting public–private partnership (PPP) rental retirement villages, the purpose of this paper is to bring forward the solution of insufficient research in a non-competitive guarantee (a restrictive agreement) towards the compensation and guarantee costs in consideration of benefit redistribution if the governments are unable to keep the promise on guarantee provision. Real option principles are applied to assess the public–private investment proportions and the expected return rates of the private sector in a non-competitive guarantee and analyse their effects on the public–private benefit and risk allocations as well as the success of the project. Instead of granting direct capital support, this research accomplishes the compensation of non-competition guarantee by adjusting the project benefit distribution ratios between the government and the private sector to achieve the option value of the guarantee. An empirical ex le with alternative scales, which is developed from an existing rental village in Geelong, is used to numerically verify the research process. The results illustrate that the option value of the non-competition guarantee plays an important role in supporting the implementation of the PPP rental retirement village projects. The option value of the non-competition guarantee has a close relationship with the guarantee level and the government guarantee cost, which is positively correlated with the guarantee level and negatively correlated with the government guarantee cost. To reduce the government guarantee cost, the government should carefully determine the public–private investment proportion, appropriately control the return rate of the private sector and approve the construction of the new project after the investment recovery of the private sector. This research mainly focusses on the economic loss of the government due to the guarantee responsibility. Further research could be conducted to determine the guarantee level more precisely and take the social cost of the government guarantees into consideration. This research is the first attempt to investigate the government compensation and costs of non-competition guarantee for PPP rental retirement village projects and will enhance the understanding of the nature of PPP applications. The evaluation process and the implementation of the compensation through the adjustment of benefit distribution provides a comprehensive method to analyse the non-competition guarantee of PPP projects and help the parties negotiate in good faith to agree on a method of redress.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for HONGYU JIN.