IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jadmsc/v8y2018i4p80-d188506.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Assessment in PPP Projects by Applying Different MCDM Methods and Comparative Results Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Alireza Valipour

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz 74731-71987, Iran)

  • Hadi Sarvari

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan 81595-39998, Iran)

  • Jolanta Tamošaitiene

    (Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Saulėtekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania)

Abstract

Recently, risk assessment has become one of the most challenging issues in the areas of construction and public-private partnerships (PPPs). To address risk assessment issues, various decision-making techniques have been proposed, each with its own specific disadvantages and advantages. This paper investigates step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA), complex proportional assessment (COPRAS), fuzzy analytic network process (FANP), fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP), fuzzy technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (FTOPSIS), simple additive weighting (SAW) and evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS) in order to define how various multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) methods compare when used for risk assessment in PPP projects. For this study, 5 risk assessment criteria and 10 types of risk used in Iranian highway PPP projects were selected. Four suitability and applicability tests were used to measure agreement between the rankings derived from the MADM methods. Final results show that all techniques had approximately the same rankings of risk assessment, with the SWARA, COPRAS, and EDAS methods performing slightly better. The findings of this study will help the parties in PPP and construction projects to select the best risk assessment method.

Suggested Citation

  • Alireza Valipour & Hadi Sarvari & Jolanta Tamošaitiene, 2018. "Risk Assessment in PPP Projects by Applying Different MCDM Methods and Comparative Results Analysis," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-17, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:8:y:2018:i:4:p:80-:d:188506
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/8/4/80/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/8/4/80/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    2. Nastaran Chitsaz & Mohammad Banihabib, 2015. "Comparison of Different Multi Criteria Decision-Making Models in Prioritizing Flood Management Alternatives," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(8), pages 2503-2525, June.
    3. C. West Churchman & Russell L. Ackoff, 1954. "An Approximate Measure of Value," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(2), pages 172-187, May.
    4. Cengiz Kahraman, 2008. "Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods and Fuzzy Sets," Springer Optimization and Its Applications, in: Cengiz Kahraman (ed.), Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making, pages 1-18, Springer.
    5. Akintola Akintoye & Cliff Hardcastle & Matthias Beck & Ezekiel Chinyio & Darinka Asenova, 2003. "Achieving best value in private finance initiative project procurement," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(5), pages 461-470.
    6. 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.
    7. Gan, Quan & Hill, Robert J., 2009. "Measuring housing affordability: Looking beyond the median," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 115-125, June.
    8. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    9. Mulliner, Emma & Malys, Naglis & Maliene, Vida, 2016. "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PB), pages 146-156.
    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. Ayse Akbulut Basar, 2024. "Participatory Urban Planning for Social Sustainability: A Combination of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, with Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats Analysis, and the Technique for Order Prefer," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Michal Gluszak & Remigiusz Gawlik & Malgorzata Zieba, 2019. "Smart and Green Buildings Features in the Decision-Making Hierarchy of Office Space Tenants: An Analytic Hierarchy Process Study," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-16, July.
    3. Asheem Shrestha & Jolanta Tamošaitienė & Igor Martek & M Reza Hosseini & David J Edwards, 2019. "A Principal-Agent Theory Perspective on PPP Risk Allocation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-18, November.
    4. Mohammad Heydari & Kin Keung Lai & Victor Shi & Feng Xiao, 2023. "Public Health Risk Evaluation through Mathematical Optimization in the Process of PPPs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-19, January.
    5. Yorela Yenifer Esperilla-Niño-de-Guzmán & María de los Ángeles Baeza-Muñoz & Francisco Jesús Gálvez-Sánchez & Valentín Molina-Moreno, 2024. "Public–Private Partnership (PPP) in Road Infrastructure Projects: A Review of Evolution, Approaches, and Prospects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-24, February.
    6. Jolanta Tamošaitienė & Hadi Sarvari & Daniel W. M. Chan & Matteo Cristofaro, 2020. "Assessing the Barriers and Risks to Private Sector Participation in Infrastructure Construction Projects in Developing Countries of Middle East," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, December.
    7. Hadi Sarvari & Mansooreh Rakhshanifar & Jolanta Tamošaitienė & Daniel W.M. Chan & Michael Beer, 2019. "A Risk Based Approach to Evaluating the Impacts of Zayanderood Drought on Sustainable Development Indicators of Riverside Urban in Isfahan-Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-20, November.
    8. Shabir Hussain Khahro & Tauha Hussain Ali & Shafiqul Hassan & Noor Yasmin Zainun & Yasir Javed & Shahbaz Aziz Memon, 2021. "Risk Severity Matrix for Sustainable Public-Private Partnership Projects in Developing Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-15, March.
    9. Hadi Sarvari & Alireza Valipour & Nordin Yahya & Norhazilan MD Noor & Michael Beer & Nerija Banaitiene, 2019. "Approaches to Risk Identification in Public–Private Partnership Projects: Malaysian Private Partners’ Overview," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-18, February.

    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. Thomas L. Saaty & Daji Ergu, 2015. "When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1171-1187, November.
    2. Mulliner, Emma & Malys, Naglis & Maliene, Vida, 2016. "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PB), pages 146-156.
    3. Katerina Kabassi, 2021. "Comparing Multi-Criteria Decision Making Models for Evaluating Environmental Education Programs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    4. Heidary Dahooie, Jalil & Qorbani, Ali Reza & Daim, Tugrul, 2021. "Providing a framework for selecting the appropriate method of technology acquisition considering uncertainty in hierarchical group decision-making: Case Study: Interactive television technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    5. Mulliner, Emma & Smallbone, Kieran & Maliene, Vida, 2013. "An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-279.
    6. José Ribas, 2014. "An Assessment of Conflicting Intentions in the Use of Multipurpose Water Reservoirs," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(12), pages 3989-4000, September.
    7. Kuo, Ting, 2017. "A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 152-160.
    8. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    9. Hu, Shuozhuo & Li, Jian & Yang, Fubin & Yang, Zhen & Duan, Yuanyuan, 2020. "Multi-objective optimization of organic Rankine cycle using hydrofluorolefins (HFOs) based on different target preferences," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    10. Babak Daneshvar Rouyendegh & Kazim Topuz & Ali Dag & Asil Oztekin, 2019. "An AHP-IFT Integrated Model for Performance Evaluation of E-Commerce Web Sites," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 1345-1355, December.
    11. Syed Hammad Mian & Khaja Moiduddin & Hisham Alkhalefah & Mustufa Haider Abidi & Faraz Ahmed & Faraz Hussain Hashmi, 2023. "Mechanisms for Choosing PV Locations That Allow for the Most Sustainable Usage of Solar Energy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-24, February.
    12. Mimica R. Milošević & Miloš M. Nikolić & Dušan M. Milošević & Violeta Dimić, 2022. "Managing Resources Based on Influential Indicators for Sustainable Economic Development: A Case Study in Serbia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, April.
    13. van de Kaa, Geerten & Rezaei, Jafar & Kamp, Linda & de Winter, Allard, 2014. "Photovoltaic technology selection: A fuzzy MCDM approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 662-670.
    14. Eduardo Fernandez & Jorge Navarro & Rafael Olmedo, 2018. "Characterization of the Effectiveness of Several Outranking-Based Multi-Criteria Sorting Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1047-1084, July.
    15. Khaja Moiduddin & Syed Hammad Mian & Usama Umer & Hisham Alkhalefah & Abdul Sayeed, 2020. "Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision Mapping to Evaluate Implant Design for Maxillofacial Reconstruction," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-33, November.
    16. Hayk Manucharyan, 2020. "Dealing with uncertainties of green supplier selection: a fuzzy approach," Working Papers 2020-13, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    17. Heidary Dahooie, Jalil & Raafat, Romina & Qorbani, Ali Reza & Daim, Tugrul, 2021. "An intuitionistic fuzzy data-driven product ranking model using sentiment analysis and multi-criteria decision-making," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    18. Marcus V. C. Fagundes & Bernd Hellingrath & Francisco G. M. Freires, 2021. "Supplier Selection Risk: A New Computer-Based Decision-Making System with Fuzzy Extended AHP," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-17, March.
    19. Christina Francis & Paul Hansen & Bjarnhéðinn Guðlaugsson & David M. Ingram & R. Camilla Thomson, 2022. "Weighting Key Performance Indicators of Smart Local Energy Systems: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-17, December.
    20. Anagnostopoulos, K.P. & Petalas, C., 2011. "A fuzzy multicriteria benefit-cost approach for irrigation projects evaluation," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(9), pages 1409-1416, July.

    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:gam:jadmsc:v:8:y:2018:i:4:p:80-:d:188506. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.