4.4 Article

Cross-Sectional Analysis of Critical Risk Factors for PPP Water Projects in China

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000214

关键词

Public-private partnerships; Water supply sector; Risk ranking; Risk allocation

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

During the past decades in China, the traditional state monopoly has experienced difficulties in meeting the huge demand for new infrastructure and improvement in service levels, engendering the growth of different forms and degrees of private sector involvement. Since the 1990s, China has started experimenting with the public-private partnership (PPP) delivery method in the water supply sector. However, many problems stemming from unsuccessful risk management have been encountered in PPP applications that have eventually led to project failure. This paper aims to identify and evaluate typical risks associated with PPP projects in the Chinese water supply sector. A literature review, a Delphi survey, and face-to-face interviews were used to achieve these objectives. Finally, a register of 16 critical risk factors (CRFs) of water PPP projects in China was established. The findings revealed that completion risk, inflation, and price change risk have a higher impact on Chinese water PPP projects, whereas government corruption, an imperfect law and supervision system, and a change in market demand have a lower impact on the water supply sector. The findings can help project stakeholders to improve the efficiency of privatization in public utility service and provide private investors with a better understanding while they participate in the enormous Chinese water market through the PPP mode. (C) 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.

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

4.4
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