Decision theory and real estate development: a note on uncertainty

Real estate development appraisal is a quantification of future expectations. The appraisal model relies upon the valuer/developer having an understanding of the future in terms of the future marketability of the completed development and the future cost of development. In some cases the developer has some degree of control over the possible variation in the variables, as with the cost of construction through the choice of specification. However, other variables, such as the sale price of the final product, are totally dependent upon the vagaries of the market at the completion date. To try to address the risk of a different outcome to the one expected (modelled) the developer will often carry out a sensitivity analysis on the development. However, traditional sensitivity analysis has generally only looked at the best and worst scenarios and has focused on the anticipated or expected outcomes. This does not take into account uncertainty and the range of outcomes that can happen. A fuller analysis should include examination of the uncertainties in each of the components of the appraisal and account for the appropriate distributions of the variables. Similarly, as many of the variables in the model are not independent, the variables need to be correlated. This requires a standardised approach and we suggest that the use of a generic forecasting software package, in this case Crystal Ball, allows the analyst to work with an existing development appraisal model set up in Excel (or other spreadsheet) and to work with a predetermined set of probability distributions. Without a full knowledge of risk, developers are unable to determine the anticipated level of return that should be sought to compensate for the risk. This model allows the user a better understanding of the possible outcomes for the development. Ultimately the final decision will be made relative to current expectations and current business constraints, but by assessing the upside and downside risks more appropriately, the decision maker should be better placed to make a more informed and “better”.

Advances in continuously profiling the thermodynamic state of the boundary layer: integration of measurements and methods

This paper describes advances in ground-based thermodynamic profiling of the lower troposphere through sensor synergy. The well-documented integrated profiling technique (IPT), which uses a microwave profiler, a cloud radar, and a ceilometer to simultaneously retrieve vertical profiles of temperature, humidity, and liquid water content (LWC) of nonprecipitating clouds, is further developed toward an enhanced performance in the boundary layer and lower troposphere. For a more accurate temperature profile, this is accomplished by including an elevation scanning measurement modus of the microwave profiler. Height-dependent RMS accuracies of temperature (humidity) ranging from 0.3 to 0.9 K (0.5–0.8 g m−3) in the boundary layer are derived from retrieval simulations and confirmed experimentally with measurements at distinct heights taken during the 2005 International Lindenberg Campaign for Assessment of Humidity and Cloud Profiling Systems and its Impact on High-Resolution Modeling (LAUNCH) of the German Weather Service. Temperature inversions, especially of the lower boundary layer, are captured in a very satisfactory way by using the elevation scanning mode. To improve the quality of liquid water content measurements in clouds the authors incorporate a sophisticated target classification scheme developed within the European cloud observing network CloudNet. It allows the detailed discrimination between different types of backscatterers detected by cloud radar and ceilometer. Finally, to allow IPT application also to drizzling cases, an LWC profiling method is integrated. This technique classifies the detected hydrometeors into three different size classes using certain thresholds determined by radar reflectivity and/or ceilometer extinction profiles. By inclusion into IPT, the retrieved profiles are made consistent with the measurements of the microwave profiler and an LWC a priori profile. Results of IPT application to 13 days of the LAUNCH campaign are analyzed, and the importance of integrated profiling for model evaluation is underlined.

Fifty years of international business theory and beyond

As the field of international business has matured, there have been shifts in the core unit of analysis. First, there was analysis at country level, using national statistics on trade and foreign direct investment (FDI). Next, the focus shifted to the multinational enterprise (MNE) and the parent’s firm specific advantages (FSAs). Eventually the MNE was analysed as a network and the subsidiary became a unit of analysis. We untangle the last fifty years of international business theory using a classification by these three units of analysis. This is the country-specific advantage (CSA) and firm-specific advantage (FSA) matrix. Will this integrative framework continue to be useful in the future? We demonstrate that this is likely as the CSA/FSA matrix permits integration of potentially useful alternative units of analysis, including the broad region of the triad. Looking forward, we develop a new framework, visualized in two matrices, to show how distance really matters and how FSAs function in international business. Key to this are the concepts of compounded distance and resource recombination barriers facing MNEs when operating across national borders.

Atrocities in theory and practice: An introduction

Classical counterinsurgency theory – written before the 19th century – has generally strongly opposed atrocities, as have theoreticians writing on how to conduct insurgencies. For a variety of reasons – ranging from pragmatic to religious or humanitarian – theoreticians of both groups have particularly argued for the lenient treatment of civilians associated with the enemy camp, although there is a marked pattern of exceptions, for example, where heretics or populations of cities refusing to surrender to besieging armies are concerned. And yet atrocities – defined here as acts of violence against the unarmed (non-combatants, or wounded or imprisoned enemy soldiers), or needlessly painful and/or humiliating treatment of enemy combatants, beyond any action needed to incapacitate or disarm them – occur frequently in small wars. Examples abound where these exhortations have been ignored, both by forces engaged in an insurgency and by forces trying to put down a rebellion. Why have so many atrocities been committed in war if so many arguments have been put forward against them? This is the basic puzzle for which the individual contributions to this special issue are seeking to find tentative answers, drawing on case studies.