توسعه محل دولتی عمومی در مقیاس بزرگ و استفاده از مشارکت های عمومی و خصوصی (PPPS)

Large-scale venues for exhibitions and events are important public infrastructure. Developing venues have captured much of governments' attention due to the potential benefits the industry would bring to the community. However, venue development requires considerable capital and operating costs, unique standards of design and complicated operational issues. Public–Private Partnerships were introduced by governments as innovative delivery models to bring forward venue projects. This paper presents comparative case studies of two PPP venue projects in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and New Zealand aiming to investigate key challenges for using PPPs in venue development and propose strategies to address the problems and assist future planning and organization for venue PPPs. The research shows that for a successful venue PPP, the following are critical features: (1) sound business case development; (2) streamlined financial arrangements; (3) robust tendering; (4) effective governance structure and partnership-based consortium; and (5) realistic risk allocation.

The exhibition and event industry plays an important role in a region and country's local economy as it helps to enhance their international reputation, boost relevant industries and business sectors (e.g. tourism, hotel, restaurants, etc.), and generate new employment opportunities (CUHK, 2009). According to a report released by the Hong Kong Exhibition and Convention Industry Association, the exhibition industry accounted for 1.8% of Hong Kong's total Gross Domestic Product (LegCo Panel on Commerce and Industry, 2008). In 2006, the tax income generated from expenditures connected with the exhibition and event industry was estimated to be about US$125 billion (LegCo Panel on Commerce and Industry, 2008). Hosting important exhibitions and events requires large-scale venues. The provision of venue facilities and associated services therefore captures much of the attention from both the public and private sector's side (Nelson, 2004). Building venues usually involves intensive capital investment and long-term operational and management expenses. Although some venues (e.g., Singapore Expo, Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre) can generate an operating surplus, the economic returns from operation do not generally offset the initial investment (e.g., construction and land costs) (Liu et al., 2009). Funding and initiating venue projects seems to be of less interest for profit-seeking entities — private sector organizations, unless an anticipated level of profits can be foreseen (Liang et al., 2011). It is hence common that the majority of large-scale venues for exhibitions and events were initiated by the public sector (Horwath, 2009). Governments may proceed with a venue project due to the considerations of broader economic and social benefits that venues would bring to the region or country, regardless the insufficient operating revenues to pay back the capital costs. The provision of venue assets and associate services poses considerable challenges to governments. The large capital investment upfront and high on-going maintenance costs impose budgetary constraints for governments to invest in other infrastructure sectors. Venue operation is complicated and entails commercial creativity and robust facility management services, imposing high requirements on the public sector's capacity to run the venue business. Governments have looked at alternative funding mechanisms and innovative service delivery models to make the development of venue projects more affordable and efficient. Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs) are favoured by governments for venue development due to advantages, such as relieving public budgetary constraints, increasing the quality of public services, enhancing innovation and optimizing risk transfer (Chan et al., 2009 and Grimsey and Lewis, 2004). PPPs have been used for venue projects, such as the Beijing National Stadium, Stadium Australia (currently known as ANZ Stadium), and the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre. Extensive research has been conducted to recommend strategies underpinning the successful application of PPPs in infrastructure sectors, such as water and wastewater (Chen, 2009), subway networks (De Jong et al., 2010) and power generation (Sobhiyah et al., 2009). However, little attention has been paid on large-scale venue projects. Issues which are specific and significant for venue development, such as tight development timeframes to meet the opening date, exposure to critical public examination, and a high risk profile to the private operator, are not sufficiently addressed in the literature. The research described in this paper aims to evaluate the experiences of venue development using PPPs, present lessons learned and recommend strategies to increase the effectiveness of venue PPP projects. Comparative case studies were adopted as the primary research method. Two high-profile venue PPP projects based in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) and New Zealand were selected to examine the key facets, identify main challenges encountered, and solicit solutions to address the challenges. The venue development was compared to the previously studied project — Sydney SuperDome (SSD) in Australia (Jefferies et al., 2002). Similarities and differences among the three cases were then analysed with respect to their individual policy context so that recommendations for future venue development using PPPs can be made. The research findings provide useful implications for both the public authorities initiating venue projects and prospective private sector investors bidding for venue PPPs.

This study evaluates the application of PPPs in large-scale venue development and draws on critical strategies applicable to venue PPPs. By examining three venue PPP projects from a comparative perspective, the research finds that the key dimensions affecting venue PPP application deviate from general PPP practices as a result of the special characteristics of venue development. The large capital investment and operating and maintenance costs determine that a business need may be missed due to the likely scenario of NPV being negative. Governments' financial investment is therefore essential to make the project viable. However, spending taxpayers' money may then lead to intense public debate. The high aesthetic value of venues requires a well-defined output specification allowing proposing innovative solutions. Meanwhile, tight timeframes required for venue development pose challenges for the procurement process. The public sector's capacity to structure an efficient procurement process is thus crucial. In light of the large operation component in running exhibition and event businesses, selecting a strong private consortium and appropriately allocating and mitigating the demand risk are considered as vital. Given the close link between venue business performance and the vibrancy of surrounding area, attention should be paid to land selection. It is important to acknowledge the limitations of this research. The three cases studied do not exactly mirror the population of venue projects in which PPPs are adopted, raising questions about the generalisation of the critical features identified from this research. Despite the limited number of cases studied, the findings provide practical implications for public authorities intending to initiate new venue projects or upgrade existing venues. In order to enhance the tourist industry and host important exhibition or events, governments are keen on developing additional venues for exhibitions and events to accommodate the increasing social needs. PPPs provide viable options for the governments to advance the venues and related services. By implementing the strategies derived from this research, governments would be at a better position to develop venues using PPPs.