[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/oprepe/v8y2021ics2214716021000130.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing and Prioritizing Risks in Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Projects Using the Integration of Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Jokar, Ebrahim
  • Aminnejad, Babak
  • Lork, Alireza
Abstract
Public-private partnership (PPP)-based infrastructure projects generally face many risks and uncertainties at all stages of the project, including initial studies, design, construction, and operation. This causes many challenges such as increased costs, delays in the project and loss of materials and equipment, and so on. Given the need to use the PPP method in the development of infrastructure projects and its broad dimensions, it is important to accurately identify and evaluate the risks involved in these projects. In the present paper, the most important risks in these projects are identified by case study in PPP-based freeway projects in Iran and using the six step-by-step process of risk management based on PMBOK standard, a model for risk assessment it is developed. Also, for quantitative risk analysis, an attempt was made to determine the importance of risks and their priority in the studied projects by using fuzzy multi-criteria decision making techniques (FAHP and FTOPSIS). The results of quantitative risk analysis by FAHP method showed that first level risks in seven different categories including economic and financing risks, construction, operational, legal, political, other risks and government risks, respectively, have the greatest impact on PPP-based freeway projects. They are dedicated to themselves. Also, the results of the general ranking of the sub-criteria showed that high risk financing costs, quality of performance and standards, lack of support infrastructure have the greatest impact on these projects. Finally, the results of FTOPSIS similarity index showed that according to project experts, projects A (Isfahan-Shiraz Freeway), B (Salafchegan-Arak Freeway) and C (Khorramabad-Arak Freeway) with scores of 0.433, 0.3369 and 0.283, respectively, had a greater impact on risks, respectively. Also, the remaining risks that were jointly or at least one of the studied projects had a high impact were identified as final risks and were allocated among the various pillars of the project. The results of this research can be used as a management model in the process of risk assessment and management of PPP projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Jokar, Ebrahim & Aminnejad, Babak & Lork, Alireza, 2021. "Assessing and Prioritizing Risks in Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Projects Using the Integration of Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 8(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:oprepe:v:8:y:2021:i:c:s2214716021000130
    DOI: 10.1016/j.orp.2021.100190
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214716021000130
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.orp.2021.100190?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhang, Huanhuan & Kou, Gang & Peng, Yi, 2019. "Soft consensus cost models for group decision making and economic interpretations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(3), pages 964-980.
    2. Antonio Estache & Ellis Juan & Lourdes Trujillo, 2011. "Public–Private Partnerships in Transport," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 30, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Longbo Du & Jing Gao, 2021. "Risk and Income Evaluation Decision Model of PPP Project Based on Fuzzy Borda Method," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2021, pages 1-10, January.
    4. Sureeyatanapas, Panitas & Sriwattananusart, Kawinpob & Niyamosoth, Thanawath & Sessomboon, Weerapat & Arunyanart, Sirawadee, 2018. "Supplier selection towards uncertain and unavailable information: An extension of TOPSIS method," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 69-79.
    5. S. Q. Wang & Robert Tiong & S. K. Ting & D. Ashley, 2000. "Evaluation and management of foreign exchange and revenue risks in China's BOT projects," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 197-207.
    6. Shrestha, Asheem & Chan, Toong-Khuan & Aibinu, Ajibade A. & Chen, Chuan, 2017. "Efficient risk transfer in PPP wastewater treatment projects," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 132-140.
    7. C-H Yeh & H Deng & H Pan, 1999. "Multi-criteria analysis for dredger dispatching under uncertainty," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 50(1), pages 35-43, January.
    8. Chang, Da-Yong, 1996. "Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 649-655, December.
    9. A. V. Thomas & Satyanarayana Kalidindi & L. S. Ganesh, 2006. "Modelling and assessment of critical risks in BOT road projects," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(4), pages 407-424.
    10. Kumar, Lakshya & Jindal, Apurva & Velaga, Nagendra R., 2018. "Financial risk assessment and modelling of PPP based Indian highway infrastructure projects," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 2-11.
    11. Akbari Ahmadabadi, Ali & Heravi, Gholamreza, 2019. "Risk assessment framework of PPP-megaprojects focusing on risk interaction and project success," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 169-188.
    12. Somsuk, Nisakorn & Laosirihongthong, Tritos, 2014. "A fuzzy AHP to prioritize enabling factors for strategic management of university business incubators: Resource-based view," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 198-210.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Liu, Jiaqi & Liu, Jicai & Bu, Zehui & Zhou, Yining & He, Peifen, 2022. "Path analysis of influencing government's excessive behavior in PPP project: Based on field dynamic theory," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 522-540.
    2. Xue Xu & Min Zhao & Xiaoya Li & Chao Song, 2022. "A Study on the Risk Assessment of Water Conservancy Scenic Spot PPP Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-23, December.
    3. Steiner, Alexandre Arns & Franco, David Gabriel de Barros & Nara, Elpídio Oscar Benitez & Steiner, Maria Teresinha Arns, 2023. "Creating technical criteria for the hierarchization of public works: Case study in Paraná state, Brazil," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Akshay Hinduja & Manju Pandey, 2019. "An Integrated Intuitionistic Fuzzy MCDM Approach to Select Cloud-Based ERP System for SMEs," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1875-1908, November.
    2. Lizbeth Martínez Ramírez & Jaime Munoz Flores & Arturo Torres Vargas, 2016. "The Analytical Hierarchy Process: An Optimal Methodology for Research in Entrepreneurship (Metoda Analytical Hierarchy Process – optymalna metodologia badan przedsiebiorczosci)," Problemy Zarzadzania, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 14(62), pages 172-186.
    3. Masoud Rahiminezhad Galankashi & Farimah Mokhatab Rafiei & Maryam Ghezelbash, 2020. "Portfolio selection: a fuzzy-ANP approach," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 6(1), pages 1-34, December.
    4. Murat İnce & Tuncay Yiğit & Ali Hakan Işik, 2020. "A Novel Hybrid Fuzzy AHP-GA Method for Test Sheet Question Selection," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(02), pages 629-647, April.
    5. Abraham Park & Chen Yu Chang, 2013. "Impacts of Construction Events on the Project Equity Value of the Channel Tunnel Project," ERES eres2013_97, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
    6. Calabrese, Armando & Costa, Roberta & Levialdi, Nathan & Menichini, Tamara, 2019. "Integrating sustainability into strategic decision-making: A fuzzy AHP method for the selection of relevant sustainability issues," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 155-168.
    7. Song, Jinbo & Song, Danrong & Zhang, Xueqing & Sun, Yan, 2013. "Risk identification for PPP waste-to-energy incineration projects in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 953-962.
    8. Jana Krejčí & Alessio Ishizaka, 2018. "FAHPSort: A Fuzzy Extension of the AHPSort Method," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1119-1145, July.
    9. Shaher H. Zyoud & Daniela Fuchs-Hanusch, 2019. "Comparison of Several Decision-Making Techniques: A Case of Water Losses Management in Developing Countries," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(05), pages 1551-1578, September.
    10. Ilić, Damir & Milošević, Isidora & Ilić-Kosanović, Tatjana, 2022. "Application of Unmanned Aircraft Systems for smart city transformation: Case study Belgrade," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    11. Osman Taylan & Rami Alamoudi & Mohammad Kabli & Alawi AlJifri & Fares Ramzi & Enrique Herrera-Viedma, 2020. "Assessment of Energy Systems Using Extended Fuzzy AHP, Fuzzy VIKOR, and TOPSIS Approaches to Manage Non-Cooperative Opinions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-27, March.
    12. Javier Reig-Mullor & David Pla-Santamaria & Ana Garcia-Bernabeu, 2020. "Extended Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (E-FAHP): A General Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-14, November.
    13. Huaiwen ZHANG & Adnan Khurshid & Xinyu WANG & Alina Mirela BĂLTĂŢEANU, 2021. "Corporate Financial Risk Assessment and Role of Big Data; New Perspective Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process," Journal for Economic Forecasting, Institute for Economic Forecasting, vol. 0(2), pages 181-199, June.
    14. Lizbeth Martinez Ramirez & Jaime Munoz, 2015. "Priority Criteria and Alternatives for University Business Incubators in the Entrepreneurial Process in Mexico (Priorytetowe kryteria i alternatywy stosowane przez akademickie inkubatory przedsiebiorc," Research Reports, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 2(19), pages 95-105.
    15. Surendra Kansara & Sachin Modgil & Rupesh Kumar, 2023. "Structural transformation of fuzzy analytical hierarchy process: a relevant case for Covid-19," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 450-465, March.
    16. Zhao, Zhen-Yu & Zuo, Jian & Zillante, George, 2013. "Factors influencing the success of BOT power plant projects in China: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 446-453.
    17. Babatunde, Solomon Olusola & Perera, Srinath, 2017. "Analysis of traffic revenue risk factors in BOT road projects in developing countries," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 41-49.
    18. Benyou Jia & Slobodan P. Simonovic & Pingan Zhong & Zhongbo Yu, 2016. "A Multi-Objective Best Compromise Decision Model for Real-Time Flood Mitigation Operations of Multi-Reservoir System," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(10), pages 3363-3387, August.
    19. Christina Theodoraki & Karim Messeghem & Mark P. Rice, 2018. "A social capital approach to the development of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems: an explorative study," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 153-170, June.
    20. Pasura Aungkulanon & Walailak Atthirawong & Pongchanun Luangpaiboon & Wirachchaya Chanpuypetch, 2024. "Navigating Supply Chain Resilience: A Hybrid Approach to Agri-Food Supplier Selection," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-41, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:oprepe:v:8:y:2021:i:c:s2214716021000130. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/operations-research-perspectives .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.