A housing authority evaluates whether to invest a $4M grant in green space retrofits across three neighborhoods, requiring candidates to analyze costs, quantify health benefits (asthma hospitalization savings), calculate payback periods, and weigh resident concerns against financial returns.
Key Insights:
- Public sector cases require balancing financial ROI with social and political considerations; economic benefits are only one piece of the equation
- Payback period (5.5 years for Site C) meets the 6-year constraint, but Site A’s higher annual savings ($600K vs $200K) creates a defensible alternative recommendation
- Survey data reveals a tradeoff: Site A residents are most enthusiastic but most concerned about construction disruption; Site B residents are least interested but least disruption-sensitive; strong candidates identify this tension and propose mitigation strategies
- The $4M budget constraint and risk of creating disparities across neighborhoods raise opportunity cost questions—candidates should consider whether other investments might generate higher returns