A real options-based investment-income valuation model for old community renewal projects in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To propose a new investment-income valuation model by real options approach (ROA) for old community renewal (OCR) projects, which could help the government attract private capital's participation. Design/methodology/approach The new model is proposed by identifying the types of options private capital has in the OCR project, selecting the option model most suitable for private capital investment decisions, improving the valuation model through the triangular fuzzy numbers to take into account the uncertainty and flexibility, and demonstrating the feasibility of the calculation model through an actual OCR project case. Findings The new model can valuate OCR projects more accurately based on considering uncertainty and flexibility, compared with conventional methods that often underestimate the value of OCR projects. Practical implications The investment-income of OCR projects shall be re-valuated from the lens of real options, which could help reveal more real benefits beyond the capital growth of OCR projects, enable the government to attract private capital's investment in OCR, and alleviate government fiscal pressure. Originality/value The proposed OCR-oriented investment-income valuation model systematically analyzes the applicability of real option value (ROV) to OCR projects, innovatively integrates the ROV and the net present value (NPV) as expanded net present value (ENPV), and accurately evaluate real benefits in comparison with existing models. Furthermore, the newly proposed model holds the potential to be transferred to various social welfare projects as a tool to attract private capital's participation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".