Public–Private Partnerships (P3s) for Social Infrastructure

Martin, Lawrence L.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-24600-6_6

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, financing is defined as borrowing money for capital expenditures and promising to repay that money, typically with a rate of return over time, with future revenue streams (Kim & Ryan, 2015). For this review, we defined partnerships following the International City/County Management Association definition, as “…a variety of arrangements—privatization, outsourcing, grants, leases, asset sales, and others—between governments and private sector organizations (both for‐profit and nonprofit)” to shift risk from public to private sectors and reduce costs (Martin, 2018, p. 2). Examples of partnerships for capital expenditures include policies that require developers to include GI in redevelopment or allow payment of an in‐lieu fee.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paying for nature‐based solutions: A review of funding and financing mechanisms for ecosystem services and their impacts on social equity

Thompson

Bunds

Larson

et al. 2023

Sustainable Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Funding and financing challenges remain a persistent barrier to implementing nature‐based solutions that enhance ecosystem services, facilitate adaptation to climate change, and combat environmental stressors in cities. In the absence of adequate public financial resources, private funds are often expected to fill the gap. But market‐driven, nature‐based solutions can contribute to an inequitable distribution of urban ecosystem services by focusing on net benefits provided by nature. To help foster sustainable development and ensure that nature‐based solutions reach diverse and historically marginalized populations and communities, this scoping review explores the ecosystem services provided by nature‐based solutions and the payment mechanisms that produce and maintain them, focusing on literature on the United States. Findings suggest that the net benefits provided by nature‐based solutions and the available payment mechanisms vary based on the solution utilized (e.g., urban trees, parks, community gardens). Further, the distribution of benefits from nature‐based solutions is influenced by local historical, cultural, political, economic, and environmental contexts, the voices included in decision‐making, and the payment mechanisms used. Inspired by social equity principles, we present a framework for ecosystem service provision that is sensitive to market‐driven funding, financing, and partnerships. Practitioners can use this framework to assess whether payment schemes work in tandem with place (the local context) and process (governance and planning approaches) to ameliorate or exacerbate disparities in nature‐based solutions and the benefits they provide to people.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paying for nature‐based solutions: A review of funding and financing mechanisms for ecosystem services and their impacts on social equity

Thompson

Bunds

Larson

et al. 2023

Sustainable Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although many states have PPP-enabling legislations, these legislations are not consistent in all states and are sometimes limited to certain project types such as transportation infrastructure. According to Martin [28], 37 states had passed PPP-enabling legislation and only eight of them included social infrastructure projects as of 2018. Hence, there is no standard for all PPPs in the United States.…”

Section: Ppp Legislationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public–Private Partnerships for Higher Education Institutions in the United States

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public–private Partnerships have become a common delivery method for diverse types of projects ranging from transportation and energy infrastructure to social infrastructure. Previous research has mainly focused on PPPs for infrastructure and other non-social projects. Although PPP projects for higher education institutions share some common attributes with their traditional counterparts, they also have unique aspects such as institutional culture as well as structure of ownership and management. Hence, the objectives of this research were to (1) conduct a systematic collection and analysis of PPP projects in higher education institutions in the United States; and (2) conduct a gap analysis to provide recommendations for future projects and lessons learned from past ones. A gap analysis of the published data on higher education PPPs was undertaken, identifying 45 educational PPP projects in the United States. The main areas of study were type of project (e.g., housing, commercial, mixed use, etc.), size, and investment made. Additionally, a questionnaire survey was disseminated to experts in the field to collect data on these projects and report on them. The results showed an increasing trend in project size between 1994 and 2018 with the majority being for housing developments while a smaller percentage was for commercial and utility projects. A geographical representation shows a large number of projects clustered in the Southern and Northeastern regions of the United States. Additionally, a questionnaire survey was used to identify samples of these projects and present them as a case study. The number of PPPs is expected to rise due to funding cuts and state appropriation cuts. Finally, the proposed recommendations can also be extrapolated for other social or infrastructure projects.

show abstract

“…The need for a strong legal foundation to support P3s of any type (transportation, environment, or social) is generally acknowledged in the literature (e.g., Albalate et al, 2019; Hodge & Greve, 2016; Martin, 2017; World Bank, 2017). The argument is made that well-defined P3 legal frameworks protect the interests of governments and taxpayers and encourage private sector interest and investment (e.g., Martin, 2017). Some evidence, drawn from transportation P3s, supports this contention.…”

Section: State Social Infrastructure P3 Enabling Legislation and Publmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The taxonomy adopted by the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing (NIGP, 2016) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA; Martin, 2017) is used to classify the P3 types that public universities are authorized to use for social infrastructure projects (Table 5).…”

Section: States With Specific Social Infrastructure P3 Enabling Legismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Public infrastructure is frequently divided into three categories: transportation (e.g., roads, bridges, transit), environmental (e.g., water, waste-water, landfills), and social. Social infrastructure, also called “vertical infrastructure,” refers broadly to facilities utilized for public purposes such as schools, housing, health care facilities, sport and recreation facilities, arts and cultural facilities (e.g., libraries, museums), and other general government buildings (Martin, 2019a; Spacey, 2017). Most of the research literature on public–private partnerships (P3s) in the United States focuses on the transportation sector and to a lesser degree the environmental sector (Knopman et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Public University Use of Social Infrastructure Public–Private Partnerships (P3s): An Exploratory Examination

Levey¹,

Connors

Martin

2020

Public Works Management & Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using data from the 50 states, this exploratory study looks at public university use of public–private partnerships (P3s) for a particular type of social infrastructure, student housing. The relation between state social infrastructure P3s enabling legislation and public university P3 student housing project closures is analyzed. A deep dive is conducted into the legislative requirements of four states (California, Florida, Georgia, and Virginia) that have specific enabling legislation governing public university use of P3s for social infrastructure. The study finds that public universities have a 20-year history of utilizing social infrastructure P3s for student housing. A relationship is found between state social infrastructure P3 enabling legislation and increased public university use of P3s for student housing. The study also finds that states with specific public university P3 social infrastructure enabling legislation place decidedly different requirements on their use.

show abstract

Public–Private Partnerships (P3s) for Social Infrastructure

Cited by 5 publications

References 3 publications

Paying for nature‐based solutions: A review of funding and financing mechanisms for ecosystem services and their impacts on social equity

Paying for nature‐based solutions: A review of funding and financing mechanisms for ecosystem services and their impacts on social equity

Public–Private Partnerships for Higher Education Institutions in the United States

Public University Use of Social Infrastructure Public–Private Partnerships (P3s): An Exploratory Examination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About