WIT Press


The Comparative Analysis Of Performance Indicators And Information Disclosure For BIDs And Area-based Management In The US, UK, And Japan

Price

Free (open access)

Paper DOI

10.2495/SDP160031

Volume

210

Pages

13

Page Range

25 - 37

Published

2017

Size

608 kb

Author(s)

J. Mitarai, N. Suebsuk

Abstract

Business improvement districts (BIDs) and area-based management (ABM) represent independent actions taken by a group of property owners or business operators in cooperation with local government for improving the business environment and value of the area concerned. In the US and UK, BIDs are managed by special assessments, levies, or taxes on property owners or business operators. In Japan, there are no BIDs but there are some private organisations called ABMs which manage the area by cognate fields, such as enhancing the clever use of existing infrastructure, social capital, safety and sanitation, beautiful landscape, and business promotion, with strategic thinking on management and sustainability. This research provides a comparative study on research performance indicators and information disclosed by BID and ABM organisations, focusing on the cities of New York, London, and Tokyo. It uses a survey of 227 indicators and numerical information from the annual reports of two organisations in each city and compares them through the view point of the amount, output-outcome, and nine original categories. In conclusion, the difference relates to the characteristics and purpose of the system in each city. For New York, they emphasise clean and green and announce their activities in accordance with the sunset provision. In London, marketing and economics is emphasised, according to the organisational objectives, and use outcome data as a performance indicator. Whereas, in Tokyo, disclosed data is less and varies by area since there is no BID system. From the analysis, this study suggests certain ideas on information and indicators for introducing a BID system to current non-BID using countries.

Keywords

business improvement districts, Area-based management, performance indicator, evaluation, public-private partnership, output-outcome