4.5 Article

Developing a Fuzzy Risk Allocation Model for PPP Projects in China

期刊

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000189

关键词

Quantitative risk allocation; PPP projects; Fuzzy set; Fuzzy synthetic evaluation; China

资金

  1. Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China [N_PolyU 514/07]
  2. National Science Foundation Council Research Grant of China [70731160634]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Equitable allocation of risks between the government and the private sector in concession agreement is essential to the success of public-private partnership (PPP) projects. The decision-making process, based on the established risk allocation principles expressed in linguistic terms, requires qualitative judgment and experiential knowledge of construction experts. However, it is subjective, partial, and implicit in actual application. This paper aims to develop a fuzzy synthetic evaluation model for determining an equitable risk allocation between the government and the private sector. By doing so, it assists the PPP project practitioners to transform the risk allocation principles in linguistic terms into a more usable and systematic quantitative-based analysis using fuzzy set. Twenty-three principles and influencing factors for risk allocation were identified through a comprehensive literature review. Nine critical risk allocation criteria (RACs) that evaluate the risk carrying capability of project participants were further identified, validated, and compiled based on the experts' knowledge via face-to-face interviews. On the other hand, the weighting for each critical risk allocation criterion was determined through a two-round Delphi questionnaire survey. A set of knowledge-based fuzzy inference rules was then established to set up the membership function for the nine RACs. Based on the research findings, a fuzzy synthetic evaluation model was finally established to determine an equitable risk allocation between the government and the private sector.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据