A Systemic approach to scoping of factors influencing more sustainable land use in Herefordshire

Defining and putting into practice sustainable land use is a complex, systemic problem. Systems models and techniques were used in a study of Herefordshire to clarify the situation and identify the potential for a more locally focused, learning-based approach to land use. Issues included: (i) uncertainty about the boundary of a 'system of sustainable Herefordshire land use'; (ii) the complexity of economic flows in the county and the absence of some critical data; (iii) the importance of the Herefordshire landscape to tourism and the role of agriculture as a determinant of the state of that landscape; (iv) weakness of the institutional linkage between tourism and agriculture; (v) the current lack of inclusion of many relevant stakeholders in concerted action. Factors favouring a learning approach included a strong local identity, local food-related developments, and educational initiatives. Barriers to such an approach included questions of power and landholding, government policies, and attitudes and skills within organizations. These findings are considered in relation to the wider debate over approaches to sustainability

What Do Community Benefits Agreements Deliver? Evidence From Los Angeles

Problem, research strategy, and findings: Advocates of community benefits agreements (CBAs) between coalitions of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and real estate developers contend that CBAs promote public accountability and responsiveness to community concerns. This study assesses the Los Angeles Sports and Entertainment District (LASED) CBA, which scholars and practitioners have described as a model for such agreements. I assess compliance with key provisions of the agreement related to jobs, affordable housing, and parks and recreational facilities. I also assess whether compliance with these provisions has yielded benefits beyond those required under existing laws and regulations. I find that the parties to the agreement have technically complied with many, although arguably not all, of its provisions. But some of the provisions in the CBA are not legally binding, other provisions overlap with requirements that the developer would have had to satisfy even without the CBA, and some reports required by the CBA are unavailable. As a result, outcomes such as living wage jobs and funding for affordable housing units are not clearly attributable to the CBA; other outcomes, such as targeted hiring, are unknown due to a lack of relevant information.Takeaway for practice: Although CBAs may not fulfill all the claims that advocates make on their behalf, they can play important roles in community development by directing public and private spending to underserved neighborhoods. But collecting and verifying the relevant data may be challenging, even if reporting requirements are clearly spelled out in the CBA. As the complexity of a CBA increases, so do the challenges of assessing outcomes and assigning responsibility for those outcomes

Stock repurchasing bias of mutual funds

This paper investigates whether the positive emotions mutual fund managers have when they have sold a stock for a gain lead to a higher repurchasing probability of this stock in the future. Controlling for fund, stock, and time fixed effects, we show that the probability of a stock being repurchased by a mutual fund is on average around 17% higher if it was previously sold for a gain rather than for a loss. The effect is less pronounced if the stock price has increased after the sale of the stock, which may cause regret and a negative feeling that the stock has been sold in the first place. In line with positive emotions driving the repurchasing behavior, we find that when fund managers change jobs and work at a different fund, they still prefer to repurchase stocks that they sold for a gain at the fund they managed before. We find supportive evidence that this behavior is associated with lower fund performance: repurchased winners underperform repurchased losers by around 5% p.a. after the repurchase. Thus, investors should be aware that mutual fund managers' repurchasing decisions can be biased and eventually may hurt their performance