Contested Risk Factors in Solid Waste Management PPP Projects … · 2018-08-14 · Please cite as: Dolla T and Laishram B (2017) Contested Risk Factors in Solid Waste Management

Please cite as: Dolla T and Laishram B (2017) Contested Risk Factors in Solid Waste Management PPP Projects in

India. In: Managing Construction and Related Sectors, Challenges, Opportunities, Status and Trends (COST) in India,

Pune, India, Volume I. Edited Book Published by NICMAR, pp. 155–167.

Prepublication version. 155

Contested Risk Factors in Solid Waste Management PPP Projects in India Dolla Tharun1, Boeing Laishram2

Abstract

The Public Private Partnership (PPP) mode has been increasingly employed in Solid Waste

Management (SWM) projects in India in the past decade due to the urgent need of complying with

the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) rules. Extant literature finds that appropriate risk allocation is

key to the success of PPP projects. Risk management has increased interest in the research

community as the risk profile varies with a sector of application, geographical location, and

policies of the government. However, as these factors vary widely and make every project unique,

often risk allocation is contested among parties involved in the PPP project. This makes another

risk management study inevitable for the Indian SWM sector. This paper maps the results of risk

allocation preference as obtained from the questionnaire survey and interviews with Indian

stakeholders. The mapping yielded that a few factors are contested among the respondent groups.

The top three contested factors viz. ‘financing risk’, ‘revenue risk’, and ‘waste collection and

segregation risk’ are succinctly discussed. This paper introduces an on-going research project

aimed at identifying and operationalizing PPPs in SWM sector projects. The risk allocation

framework aimed as one of the deliverables from the overall research and can be used by

stakeholders of SWM sector as a guiding tool for appropriate risk allocation in future PPP projects.

Keywords: Risk Allocation, Solid Waste Management, Public Private Partnerships

1. Introduction

Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects are aimed at bringing the much needed infrastructure.

These projects developed using models such as Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) and Design-Build-

Finance-Operate-Transfer (DBFOT) are funded using the project finance route. The investors and

lenders ascertain the ability of the project to generate enough revenues to service their debt and

earn return on their investments, respectively. The returns expected by the investors and lenders

1Ph.D. Research Scholar, Email: [email protected], 2Associate Professor, Infrastructure Engineering and

Management Division, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]





depend on the risk profile of the project. The risk management strategies adopted for the project,

based on the risk profile of the project, has a strong bearing on the financial viability of the project.

Risk management strategies focus on lowering the probability of realization of the risk event and

reducing the financial implication of the risk. The lenders, therefore, insist on the allocation of

risk to the party that can best able to manage the risk so that the residual risk with the project

company is minimal. In addition to risk transfer, the other risk mitigation strategies adopted in PPP

projects include risk avoidance and risk reduction. Therefore, in circumstances when risk cannot

be transferred to the most eligible stakeholders, lenders insist on lowering the risk exposure by

avoiding the risks. In project finance, lenders also insist on adoption of commercially proven

technology in order to limit the exposure to technology risk.

The success of PPP projects greatly depends on of successful management of risks associated with

the projects.. As per the risk management concept, risks associated with the projects should be first

identified allocated to best party to handle before formulating strategies on how to mitigate the

risks. One of the commonly adopted approaches for risk identification is to use risk template of

previous studies in order to identify risks associated with the project (Ke et al. 2010). The objective

of current study is to identify major risk factors in PPP Solid Waste Management (SWM) projects

irrespective of the model of PPP, establish risk allocation preference among stakeholders, and

discuss the contested risk factors. The present study used the risk profile of a typical PPP SWM

project from Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) Toolkit for PPP SWM projects (Ministry

of Finance 2010a) as the main source and also used drawings from other relevant literature (Ke et

al. 2010; PPP Canada 2013). The present study identified 22 risk factors as shown in Table.1.

These 22 risk factors in the context of PPP SWM projects are the subjects of analysis. This paper

succinctly presents the survey findings with respect to two research questions viz., ‘how various

stakeholders perceived the risk magnitude of various technologies in SWM PPP projects?’ and

‘how various stakeholders view and reason the risk allocation?’ This paper introduces an on-going

research project aimed at identifying and operationalizing PPPs in SWM sector projects. The risk

allocation framework aimed as one of the deliverables from the overall research that can be used

by stakeholders of SWM sector as a guiding tool for appropriate risk allocation in the future PPP

projects.





Table.1: Generic Risk Definitions

Risk Definition

Delays in land

acquisition

Refers to the risk that the project site (or sites) will be unavailable or unable to

be used within the required time, or in the manner or the cost anticipated or

the site will generate unanticipated liabilities due to existing encumbrances

and native claims being made on the site. This risk is most relevant to green-

field projects involving treatment and disposal facilities.

Supporting

utilities risk

Refers to the risk that adequate and timely connectivity to the project site is

not available, which may affect the commencement of construction and the

overall pace of development of the project. An example of connectivity could

be roads to facilities.

Financing risk Refers to the risk that sufficient finance will not be available for the project at

a reasonable cost (e.g. because of changes in market conditions or credit

availability) resulting in delays in the financial closure for a project. Also,

refers to the risk that the concessionaire introduces too much financial stress

on the project by using an inappropriate financial structure for privately

financed components of the project. It can result in additional funding costs

for increased margins or unexpected refinancing costs. Currency risk can also

affect financial risk if the project includes funding denominated in foreign

currency. Poor financial market or unavailability of financial instrument

resulting difficulty of financing.

Planning risk Refers to the risk that the pre-development studies (technical, legal, financial

and others) conducted are inadequate or not robust enough resulting in possible

deviations from the outcomes that were planned or expected in the PPP project

development.

Permits and

clearance risk

The risk is that the needed approvals will either be delayed or will not be

granted, resulting in additional cost or threat to the project. Such approvals

may include transport permits, relevant environmental permits, waste disposal

consents.

Design risk Refers to the risk that the proposed design will be unable to meet the

performance and service requirements in the output specification. It can result

in additional costs for modification and redesign. Unanticipated changes and

errors in the construction/ operation resulting from the improper design or poor

investigation are also included.

Technology

risk

The technology adopted not being mature or able to meet the requirements.

Completion

risk

Longer construction time than predicted. Construction cost overrun or poor

construction quality.

Operations and

maintenance

risk

Refers to the risks associated with the need for increased maintenance of assets

or machinery over the term of the project in order to meet performance

requirements.





Environmental

health and

safety risk

Refers to the risk of environmental damage in excess of what is planned for in

the environmental impact mitigation plan and the risk to employee health and

safety from SWM operations. For example, ground water pollution from a

landfill site in excess of the maximum allowed levels, accidents involving

employees and heavy equipment, or employees contracting the illness. The

risk of unexpected damages to men, material and machinery of the project due

to fire breakouts due to methane concentrations etc.

Waste volume

risk

Refers to the risk that demand for a service will vary from the initial forecast,

such that the total revenue derived from the project over the project life will

vary from initial expectations. In SWM contracts with take-or-pay terms (often

the case in BOT and management contracts), the public sector bears the

volume risk.

Revenue risk Refers to the revenue risk related to business operations dependent on the

outputs of the project. This risk is only relevant to Build-Own-Operate-

Transfer (BOOT) PPPs, in which associated developments are often an

important revenue source for the project.

Market risk Demand change from other factors, i.e. social, economic, etc., except the

exclusive right.

Waste

collection and

segregation

risk

The risk of collecting the waste and attaining the segregation into organic and

inorganic waste.

Handover risk

/ Terminal

value risk

Refers to the risk that the concessionaire will default in the handover of the

asset at the end of the project life, or that it will fail to meet the minimum

quality standard or realizable value of the asset that needs to be handed back

to the public entity. This risk (and terminal value risk) generally relates to

concession and BOT type PPPs. However, it may also be relevant to

performance-based management contracts in which the private partner is

responsible for investing in meters for road projects, tonnes for SWM.

Force Majeure Refers to the risk that events beyond the control of either entity may occur,

resulting in a material adverse impact on either party's ability to perform its

obligations under the PPP contract. These events are sometimes also called

"Acts of God", to indicate that they are beyond the control of either contracted

party.

Concessionair

e risk

Refers to the risk that the concessionaire will prove to be inappropriate or

unsuitable for delivery of the project, for example, due to the failure of their

company.

Sponsor risk Refers to the risk that the Sponsor will prove to be an unsuitable partner for

the project, for example, due to poor project management or a failure to fully

recognize the agreed terms of the Concession Agreement.

Indirect

political risk

Refers to an act of war or invasion, industry-wide or statewide strike, civil

commotion, boycott or political agitation.

Direct political

risk

Refers to change in law, expropriation or compulsory acquisition, unlawful or

unauthorized or without jurisdiction revocation of, or refusal to renew or grant

without valid cause that is required by the concessionaire or any of the





contractors to perform their respective obligations under the forged

agreements.

Insufficient

households

The risk that the project will suffer due to insufficient households in the case

of SWM projects. This could also be factored as the subset of waste volume

risk as used in some projects.

Competition

(exclusive

right)

Risk that project will have a competing facility that effects its market and

revenue generation potential. In this risk, the government does not offer the

exclusive right or does not honor its commitment and build another

competitive project.

Source: (Ke et al. 2010; Ministry of Finance 2010b; PPP Canada 2013)

2. Literature Review

Risk Management is considered as key in PPP research. Optimum risk allocation is the prime

motive of PPP risk management studies, aiming to the party that is in the best position (Jacob et

al. 2014) and is one of the most crucial topic of interest for researchers (Tang et al. 2010). Hence,

numerous researchers studied risk management with a general interest as well as based on the

sector of application. Some of the reasons for risk management to have increased interest in the

research community are: the risk profile varies with the sector of application, geographical

location, and policies of the government. Amongst sector based research, Chan et al. (2014)

studied risk factors of PPP water project in china and identified 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. For transport sector, Singh and Kalidindi (2006) presented a risk allocation framework

for PPP annuity road projects of India. Pellegrino et al. (2013) modelled option-based risk

management framework for transport PPPs. Chung et al. (2010) identified the risk perception of

Australian stakeholders with respect to toll road projects. In SWM sector, Song et al. (2013)

identified ten key risk factors using a case study with respect to PPP Waste to Energy (WTE)

projects of SWM sector in China. In Addition , Xu et al. (2015) also identified risk factors of WTE

incineration plants from China. They have adopted content analysis. The top five critical risk

factors identified are insufficient waste supply, disposal of non-licensed waste, environmental risk,

payment risk, and lack of supporting infrastructure. They argued that in the case of incineration

plant, site selection, waste classification and recycling, waste transport and waste incineration need

much study. Additionally, this study identified risk factors and how these risks were addressed in

one of the incineration project (Tianma). Similarly, Liao and Ho (2014) analyzed the risk factors





of bio medical waste disposal facilities using failure mode and effect analysis with a questionnaire

survey. However, the study results are applicable to hospital waste disposal projects only.

The past research findings are quite segregated and the factors pointed in literature vary widely

and make every project unique making another risk management study inevitable for Indian SWM

sector. In India, the projects adopt multiple technologies instead of ‘one technology- one project’,

even though risk is highly dependent on technology. This also makes previous studies not

completely feasible to the Indian context. From the literature review, as no previous study

attempted to analyze Indian PPP SWM sector, it is clear that risk magnitude identification and

allocation seems to be a knowledge gap. To this end, the first major aim of this paper is study the

risk magnitude of PPP SWM project with four technologies namely: ‘composting’, ‘Refuse

Derived Fuel (RDF) and Waste to Energy (WTE)’, ‘incineration’, ‘pyrolysis and gasification’. The

second objective of the paper is to analyze the risk allocation preferences of various stakeholders

of Indian PPP projects. The last objective of the paper is to identify and discuss the contested

factors among the respondent groups. Hence, the current pursuit of risk analysis of SWM PPP

projects would be of interest to both researchers, as little on this direction is reported in the

literature, and PPP stakeholders, like public and private parties, to understand the risk pertinent in

this kind of projects and make a judicious decision on risk allocation and mitigation.

3. Methodology and Analysis

Triangulation methodology, with both quantitative and qualitative data, has been used in current

research (Fellows and Liu, 2008). Focused group data collection technique, with two phases –one

to assess and then to validate the theoretical construct on risk rating, change in risk profile with

technology, and the related risk allocation preference, is employed. In the first phase, a five point

Likert Scale comprising of linguistic terms with corresponding numerical value – ‘Very Low-1’,

‘Low-2’, ‘Moderate-3’, ‘High-4’, and ‘Very High-5’ - has been used to solicit risk rating from the

experts. The questionnaire study was administered in late 2015. The respondents, for the wider

group, were selected using judgmental sampling (Fowler 2009). The target respondents for the

study were empanelled list of consultants for Government of India in SWM, as they are most

appropriate and knowledgeable about the intended research questions (Fellows and Liu 2008). A

total of 50 respondents were invited for the study. 34 experts accepted the invitation, of which, 20





(n=20) participated in a full-fledged manner yielding a response rate of 40%. Rest of the

respondents stated that even though they were empanelled by Government of India, they haven’t

handled any project till date and refrained to respond due to lack of expertise. The profile of

respondents who had participated in the study includes managing directors, consultants, project

specialists, project managers in PPP SWM India. Figure 1 shows the stakeholders grouping of the

respondents and Figure 2 shows the qualification background of the respondents. In the second

phase, interviews are carried where the respondents are first appraised about the survey results.

Quantitaive rich decriptions are obtained on their perceptions and the possible reason of

diferrences among groups.

Figure 1: Expertise of SWM Respondents

Figure 2: Background of SWM Respondents

The changes in the risk rating (the mean of the response value from 5 point Likert scale) of MSW

project with the adoption of different technology for waste processing is analyzed with respect to

the typical risks associated with the project is shown in Figure 3. The risk allocation preference

solicited by the respondents is presented in Figure 4. The data is also analyzed for: Minimum and

Maximum – the lowest and highest value (answer choice) selected by at least one respondent;

Mean – the average of all responses; Median: the midpoint at which all responses are evenly

19

13

1

4

5

Public

Private

Financial Institution

Trasaction Advisors

Research

0 5 10 15 20Frequency

18

2

9

10

3

1

Civil Engineering

Economics

Management

Environmental

Finance

Others

0 5 10 15 20Frequency





divided above or below and Standard deviation – the amount of spread or distance from the mean).

The analysis was performed using SPSS (Version 20) and MS Excel. To understand the influence

of each contested risk factor better, the present study analyzed and classified the risk relations as

risk inhibiting factors and risk promoting factors. The risk-inhibiting factors are the one, which

when properly taken care of, will reduce the criticality of the 'particular risk'. Whereas risk-

promoting factors are the one, which if they are not properly taken care of, would increase the

criticality of other risk factors. It is not necessary that both risk-inhibiting factors and risk-

promoting factors should be same.

Figure 3: Risk Profile Variation over Technology

Figure 4: Risk Allocation Preference in SWM PPP Projects

4. Discussion

It is widely agreed that the magnitude and cost of risk mitigation increases as the residual risk is

carried forward to next phases because the project risk progresses beyond its intended mitigation

point. Risk sharing and allocation is improved with experience of the executing contract parties

0

1

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Mea

n

Risk Factor

Composting RDF and WtE Incineration Pyrolysis and Gasification

0

5

10

15

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

n

Risk Factor

Others

Shared

Private

Government





(Chung et al. 2010). The current discussion is limited to contested risk factors even though all the

risk factors have been studied in the survey and interviews. Amongst all the risk factors, the top

three contested factors alone i.e. ‘financing risk’, ‘revenue risk’, and ‘waste collection and

segregation risk’ are shown in Table.2.

Table.2: Contested SWM Risks

Risk F (G) F (P) F (S) F (O)

Financing risks 5 45 45 5

Revenue risk 30 30 40 0

Waste collection and segregation risk 30 40 20 10

Note: F(x) represents the frequency of the options selected by the respondents; F(G) – Frequency

of risk factor allocated to government; F(P) risk factors allocated to private sector; F(S) risk factors

perceived to be shared; and F(O) risk factor opined to be allocated to another party.

Financing risk is one of the foremost risks, where respondents have stressed, in connection to

SWM. This risk is normally born by a private party in case of typical PPP project. The financing

risk is hedged by using appropriate financing mechanism and debt-equity ratio in the case of

project financing. The high-risk project uses more equity. However, since SWM sector is high

operational oriented and require large operational investment along with capital expenditure, the

risk of the private sector and to equity investor is still high in this sector. The respondent's

perceptions of this risk varied from, government giving capital grant, to getting funds from other

sources apart from project participants. The high risky nature of the sector is due to low

competency levels of the private sector to handle and operate the latest technologies at its optimal

level. Singh and Kalidindi (2009) have also provided evidence supporting similar viewpoint,

highlighting that lenders often ignore environmental aspects in projects while making decisions of

debt as consideration of this aspect will lead to additional capital cost. One of the respondents

opined, "…risk will be higher moving from composting to Pyrolysis and Gasification. We are

somewhat aware of composting, bio-methanation and RDF technology, but for incineration,

gasification we do not have know-how / technology for heterogeneous waste." In similar lines,

one of the respondents opined – “Financing Risk and Revenue risk are important for a project to





be financially sustainable. In India, SWM sector is still in evolving stage hence government grants

for funding SWM project is important, which reduces the financial risk of private operator".

"Commercially unproven technologies in India are of very high risk. Some municipalities have the

acceptable risk and most have very high risks" added another. The other risk factors which inhibit

and promote the financing risk factor is indicated in Table 3.

Table.3 Financing Risk Causal factors

Risk - inhibiting factors Risk - promoting factors

Waste collection and segregation risk Completion risk

Market risk Operations and maintenance risk

Revenue risk Revenue risk

Technology risk

Design risk

Operations and maintenance risk

Revenue risk is relevant in PPPs where the private sector is allocated the responsibility of

collecting the tipping fee from households, and revenue from the sale of its products like compost,

power, bricks etc. In case the public entity pays the monthly payment of tipping fee to the private

sector, the revenue risk to the private sector is well mitigated. Any delays in project reaching

operation stage will have an adverse effect on the project economics result in the realization of

revenue risk of the private sector to meet the benchmark IRR. In order to mitigate this risk to a

certain extent, SWM fee may be combined with property tax charging either at the rate of per

capita waste generation multiplied by persons living or a certain percentage multiplied by property

tax. One of the respondents opined that "…imposing ‘Cess’ on public as part of property tax is

already there. Cess is a negligible amount and it does not meet the requirement. But it has to be

revised. This has to go to the council etc and there has been strong political support in doing so."

Market risk is widely referred to the outputs of the project and subsequent sale of those outputs

like compost, RDF, power, gas, and bricks. To mitigate this risk, the private sector is expected to

have MOUs with a relevant organization that would be the buyers of their products. These

requirements are ignored but recent projects are taking such MOUs for secured revenue streams.

As PPPs tend to have long-term contracts, any change in the demand for products or changes





caused by external factors like consumption patterns will result in lowering of the demand for such

products and this risk could be mitigated if the buyer is a public sector organization. This risk

could be better managed by mandating letter of intents from probable buyers in the bidding stage.

The other risk factors which inhibit and promote the revenue risk factor is indicated in Table 4.

Table.4 Revenue Risk Causal factors

Risk-inhibiting factors Risk - promoting factors

Planning risk Nil

Permits and clearance risk

Financing risk

Waste collection and segregation risk is another risk which has a major impact on the success of

the project. Allocation of this risk is highly complex even though little attention is paid for this

risk in the procurement stage. The various factors effecting the allocation of this risk are – presence

and strength of local unions involved in the existing collection systems, the efficiency of existing

collection systems, and enforcement levels of Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) in implementing

policies on source segregation. Handover risk is normally borne by the private sector. Public sector

expects that the project should be in operational condition when the project is handed over to the

public sector at the time of termination of the project. One of the concession agreements of a case

study project stipulates the following provision with respect to the processing facility “The

Concessionaire shall on the date of expiry of the agreement term, hand back peaceful possession

of the Waste Processing Facility to ULB free of cost and in normal operating condition. At least

12 months before the expiry of the term of the agreement, a joint inspection of the project facilities

shall be undertaken by Project Engineer/ULB and the Concessionaire. The Concessionaire shall

promptly undertake and complete such works/jobs as may be required by ULB at least three

months prior to the expiry of agreement term and ensure that the Project Facilities may continue

to meet such requirements even after the same are handed back to ULB.” The force majeure risk

is normally borne by both parties owing to the principle that no one is in the best position to face

the acts of God. Certain insurance mechanisms are normally put in place to mitigate the

consequences of this risk. The other risk factors which inhibit and promote the waste collection

and segregation risk factor is indicated in Table 4.





Table.5 Waste Collection and Segregation Risk Causal factors

Risk-inhibiting factors Risk - promoting factors

Planning risk Revenue risk

Waste volume risk

Operation and maintenance risk

5. Inferences

The study shows that even though the after effects of the unmitigated risk are more on the private

sector, the initial triggers of the risk factors are more within the limit of the public sector. This

supports the researchers' views of sharing the risk instead bearing the risk to one party alone (Lam

1999). The data also indicates that the difference on risk sharing from the literature where Ke et

al., (2010) highlights that no single risk is shared by private alone in China but in Indian conditions

couple of risks are shared and many risks are borne by the private sector alone. This indicates a

risk aversion behavior in the public sector on the risk allocated to private sector even though the

ULB has a role to play. This causes conflict in sharing the responsibilities instead of forging a

strong partnership for executing the project. The ULBs have to exhibit much more responsibility

in executing the PPP projects and should work with the private sector as a team instead of adopting

an adversarial attitude and focused only on monitoring the organization. The risk factors contested

should be considered to projects individually rather than as a rule of thumb. If needed, financing

risk should be borne by both the parties. Risk allocation through the reasonability of finance binds

the financers as well as the private sector to the project. It is argued that better risk management

techniques are incorporated when the private financing mode exists in the project. This implies

that when the extent of private sector funding decreases the risk taking behavior of the private

sector also decreases (Grimsey and Lewis 2005). More dependence on collection and user charges

brings more uncertainty to the project revenues. In cases where the public are not willing to pay,

alternative revenue generation models should be encouraged. In case the uncertainty of finance

still exists, the government may give a part of assured tipping fee in the form of annuity without

compromising the private sector innovation capability to generate revenues. Waste collection and

segregation risk are highly contextual and is dependent on socio-political factors. It is better to





decentralize the supply chain to eliminate private sector participation in waste collection and

segregation, which indicate a definite need of bundling analysis before procuring the project

(Akintoye and Beck 2009).

6. Conclusions

This paper presents the empirical framework grounded on interviews with SWM experts in India.

The risk allocation mechanism and relevant risk factors were expounded. It showed that how the

risk intensity varies with the choice of technology, even though the parameters like waste and

scope of the project remain the same across the technological options. The findings of the study

indicate that financing risk, revenue risk, and waste collection/segregation risk are of crucial

importance to address before procuring PPP SWM projects which decide the course and success

of the project. These risks should be considered from case to case basis before procuring any

project. The presented overall risk allocation framework can be used as a guideline to handle the

risk and allocation mechanism in SWM. It should also be noted that the risks that were described

in the earlier section of solutions and options can only be mitigated though appropriate, policy,

legislation, and support, as their purview of impact is beyond the project operations. The findings

of this study are empirical in nature and hence further validation through case study will enhance

the reliability of findings. The on-going project, as shown in this paper, is a positive step towards

integrating different perceptions and priority needs of SWM infrastructure stakeholders to PPP

process to achieve successful PPP projects.

Funding Acknowledgement

The authors appreciate the support received from HUDCO’s Human Settlement Management

Institute (Research and Training Wing of HUDCO), New Delhi for carrying this research. The

authors would like to thank all interviewees across the country for making themselves available

for this study.

References

Akintoye, A., and Beck, M. (2009) (Eds.). Policy, Management and Finance for Public‐Private Partnerships. West Sussex: RICS Research & Blackwell Publishing Ltd.





Boeing Singh, L., and Kalidindi, S. N. (2006). ‘Traffic revenue risk management through

Annuity Model of PPP road projects in India.’ International Journal of Project

Management, 24(7): 605–613.

Chan, A. P. C., Lam, P. T. I., Wen, Y., Ameyaw, E. E., Wang, S., and Ke, Y. (2014).

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

Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 21(1): 4014031

Chung, D., Hensher, D. A., and Rose, J. M. (2010). ‘Toward the betterment of risk

allocation: Investigating risk perceptions of Australian stakeholder groups to public-

private-partnership tollroad projects.’ Research in Transportation Economics, 30(1): 43–

58.

Fellows, R., and Liu, A. (2008). Research Methods for Construction. Singapore: Wiley

Blackwell.

Fowler, F. (2009). Survey research methods. California: SAGE Publications Inc.

Grimsey, D., and Lewis, M. K. (2005). ‘Are Public Private Partnerships value for money?’

Accounting Forum, 29(4): 345–378.

Jacob, D., Kochendörfer, B., Von Drygalski, M., and Hilbig, C. (2014). ‘Ten years of PPP

in Germany: Experiences and perspectives.’ Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers:

Management, Procurement and Law, 167(4): 180–188.

Ke, Y., Wang, S., Chan, A. P. C., and Lam, P. T. I. (2010). ‘Preferred risk allocation in

China’s public–private partnership (PPP) projects.’ International Journal of Project

Management, 28(5): 1324–1329.

Ministry of Finance. (2010a). ‘Solid Waste Management – Module 1 : Overview of PPP

modal variants.’ PPP Toolkit for Improving PPP Decision-Making Processes, Government

of India Available from:<http://toolkit.pppinindia.com/> [Accessed 30 March 2015]

Ministry of Finance. (2010b). ‘Solid Waste Management – Module 1 : Risk – a critical

focus of PPP design.’ PPP TOOLKIT for Improving PPP Decision-Making Processes,

Government of India Available from:<http://toolkit.pppinindia.com/> [Accessed 30 March

2015]

Pellegrino, R., Vajdic, N., and Carbonara, N. (2013). ‘Real option theory for risk mitigation

in transport PPPs.’ Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 3(2): 199–213.

PPP Canada. (2013). Improving the delivery of public infrastructure by achieving better

value, timeliness and accountability to tax payers through Public-Private Partnerships.

Ottawa: P3Canada .

Singh, L. B., and Kalidindi, S. N. (2009). ‘Criteria influencing debt financing of Indian

PPP road projects: a case study.’ Journal of Financial Management of Property and

Construction, 14(1): 34–60.

Song, J., Song, D., Zhang, X., and Sun, Y. (2013). ‘Risk identification for PPP waste-to-

energy incineration projects in China.’ Energy Policy, Elsevier, 61: 953–962.

Tang, L., Shen, Q., and Cheng, E. W. L. (2010). ‘A review of studies on Public-Private

Partnership projects in the construction industry.’ International Journal of Project

Management, 28(7): 683–694.

Xu, Y., Chan, A. P. C., Xia, B., Qian, Q. K., Liu, Y., and Peng, Y. (2015). ‘Critical risk

factors affecting the implementation of PPP waste-to-energy projects in China.’ Applied

Energy, 158: 403–411.





Documents

Contested Risk Factors in Solid Waste Management PPP Projects … · 2018-08-14 · Please cite as: Dolla T and Laishram B (2017) Contested Risk Factors in Solid Waste Management