Promoting cooperation between property developers and municipalities - Analysis of communication needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Real estate is closely linked to urban development since space is a major factor of urban competitiveness; while a successful property development is dependent on suitable patterns of legal rights, which are specified by municipalities (e.g. D´Arcy & Keogh 1999, Renigier-Bilozor et al. 2016). According to this interdependence, property developers and municipalities have a mutual interest in functioning urban structures. However, divergent perspectives and interests seemingly impede a collaborative partnership between both stakeholder groups. Consequences of this contradiction are, for example, considerable delays and cost overruns of construction projects, while causes continue to be a lack of communication and unwillingness to cooperate (Bone-Winkel & Gerstner 2005; Meyer and Pfnür 2015). In this respect, the paper focusses on communication needs, which will be discussed on the basis of three workshops held in 4th quarter 2018. To make sure that the participants would not feel offended by the presence of the opposite party, there were two separate workshops with municipal representatives as well as property developers to analyse self-conceptions, expectations as well as working-methods. The third workshop served as a synthesis of the previous ones and was attended by participants from both stakeholder groups. It is found out, that both stakeholder groups are ambitious to act as partners, still trust is strongly personalised. Nevertheless, to increase mutual trust, joint dialogue and working platforms are demanded by both parties during the whole project development. It is recommended to focus on the topic, instead of personal roles. Property developers in particular should not approach municipalities with ready-made concepts, but should develop location- and project-related ideas together with the municipal administration. The conference contribution will highlight the findings of the workshops in detail. Drawn conclusions and recommended actions will be put up for discussion. Furthermore, the findings of the workshops are going to serve as a base for further expert interviews.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".