IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2023i1p41-d1310404.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Assessment in Sustainable Infrastructure Development Projects: A Tool for Mitigating Cost Overruns

Author

Listed:
  • Rubina Canesi

    (Department of Civil Environmental and Architectural Engineering (DICEA), University of Padua, Via Venezia 1, 30151 Padova, Italy)

  • Beatrice Gallo

    (Department of Civil Environmental and Architectural Engineering (DICEA), University of Padua, Via Venezia 1, 30151 Padova, Italy)

Abstract

The persistent decline in infrastructure spending, notably within the transportation sector, raises concerns about governments’ capacity to meet the demands of a sustainable growing economy. The incorporation of risk assessment in the analysis and computation of potential cost overruns emerges as an effective and efficient tool, underpinning the economic and financial sustainability of infrastructure expansions. Focusing on the “State Road No. 51 of Alemagna Vittorio Veneto” (SSv-51) variant, this study analyzes and proposes a model to forecast the possible cost overruns of an infrastructure project. The application of the risk assessment tool proposed by the National Anti-Corruption Authority (ANAC) offers valuable insights into potential risks associated with project costs and their valuation. The matrix developed in the current study draws from the ANAC Matrix, which comprises four categories of risk divided into 21 risk types. The selection is based on the project’s characteristics, and a matrix is compiled that forecasts the combination of the probability of risk occurrence and the cost impacts on the project. The proposed risk matrix serves as a practical tool for managing uncertainties and estimating potential cost overruns, estimating ex ante a possible cost increase of 7.53%. This projected increase differs only by 1.34% from the final execution costs, mitigating the unforeseen cost overruns not estimated by the initial project. The proposed risk assessment tool emphasizes the importance of integrating risk management into project planning and execution. The research investigated an applied case utilizing an easily adaptable tool, suitable for potential future implementation, further advancement, and broader testing across various project samples in the future. The study provides a framework to assess and mitigate risks linked to cost overruns. As nations navigate infrastructure development complexities, proactive risk management practices are indispensable for efficient resource management, ensuring the economic and financial sustainability of these complex projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Rubina Canesi & Beatrice Gallo, 2023. "Risk Assessment in Sustainable Infrastructure Development Projects: A Tool for Mitigating Cost Overruns," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2023:i:1:p:41-:d:1310404
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/1/41/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/1/41/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anelli, Debora & Tajani, Francesco, 2023. "Spatial decision support systems for effective ex-ante risk evaluation: An innovative model for improving the real estate redevelopment processes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    2. Renigier-Biłozor, Małgorzata & Źróbek, Sabina & Walacik, Marek & Borst, Richard & Grover, Richard & d’Amato, Maurizio, 2022. "International acceptance of automated modern tools use must-have for sustainable real estate market development," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    3. Bent Flyvbjerg, 2009. "Survival of the unfittest: why the worst infrastructure gets built--and what we can do about it," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 25(3), pages 344-367, Autumn.
    4. Neil Crosby, 2000. "Valuation accuracy, variation and bias in the context of standards and expectations," Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 18(2), pages 130-161, April.
    5. Bent Flyvbjerg & Mette K. Skamris holm & Søren L. Buhl, 2003. "How common and how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects?," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 71-88, January.
    6. Chiara D’Alpaos & Michele Moretto & Paolo Rosato, 2023. "Common-Property Resource Exploitation: A Real Options Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-22, June.
    7. Will Jennings, 2012. "Why costs overrun: risk, optimism and uncertainty in budgeting for the London 2012 Olympic Games," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(6), pages 455-462, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Love, Peter E.D. & Ika, Lavagnon A. & Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic D., 2019. "On de-bunking ‘fake news’ in a post truth era: Why does the Planning Fallacy explanation for cost overruns fall short?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 397-408.
    2. Love, Peter E.D. & Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic D., 2018. "Debunking fake news in a post-truth era: The plausible untruths of cost underestimation in transport infrastructure projects," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 357-368.
    3. Steininger, Bertram & Groth, Martin & Weber, Birgitte, 2020. "Cost overruns and delays in infrastructure projects: the case of Stuttgart 21," Working Paper Series 20/11, Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Real Estate and Construction Management & Banking and Finance.
    4. Huimin Liu & Canhui Jiang & Yan Liu & Marcel Hertogh & Xue Lyu, 2018. "Optimism Bias Evaluation and Decision-Making Risk Forecast on Bridge Project Cost Based on Reference Class Forecasting: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-29, October.
    5. Stefano Moroni, 2014. "Grandi e piccole opere Per un?azione pubblica responsabile," SCIENZE REGIONALI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(3), pages 103-112.
    6. Chantal C. Cantarelli & Bert van Wee & Eric J. E. Molin & Bent Flyvbjerg, 2013. "Different Cost Performance: Different Determinants? The Case of Cost Overruns in Dutch Transportation Infrastructure Projects," Papers 1307.2179, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2015.
    7. José Martins & Rui Cunha Marques & Carlos Oliveira Cruz & Álvaro Fonseca, 2017. "Flexibility in planning and development of a container terminal: an application of an American-style call option," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(7), pages 828-840, October.
    8. Mauro Bambi & Cristina Girolami & Salvatore Federico & Fausto Gozzi, 2017. "Generically distributed investments on flexible projects and endogenous growth," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 63(2), pages 521-558, February.
    9. Cantarelli, C.C. & Flyvbjerg, B. & Buhl, S.L., 2012. "Geographical variation in project cost performance: the Netherlands versus worldwide," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 324-331.
    10. Holz-Rau, Christian & Scheiner, Joachim, 2011. "Safety and travel time in cost-benefit analysis: A sensitivity analysis for North Rhine-Westphalia," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 336-346, March.
    11. Erica Bosio & Simeon Djankov & Edward Glaeser & Andrei Shleifer, 2022. "Public Procurement in Law and Practice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(4), pages 1091-1117, April.
    12. Bent Flyvbjerg & Allison Stewart & Alexander Budzier, 2016. "The Oxford Olympics Study 2016: Cost and Cost Overrun at the Games," Papers 1607.04484, arXiv.org.
    13. Maria Börjesson & Jonas Eliasson, 2019. "Should values of time be differentiated?," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(3), pages 357-375, May.
    14. Al-Noor Abdullah & Sanzidur Rahman, 2021. "Social Impacts of a Mega-Dam Project as Perceived by Local, Resettled and Displaced Communities: A Case Study of Merowe Dam, Sudan," Economies, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-32, September.
    15. Bent Flyvbjerg & Alexander Budzier, 2018. "Report for the Edinburgh Tram Inquiry," Papers 1805.12106, arXiv.org.
    16. Prakash, Nishith & Rockmore, Marc & Uppal, Yogesh, 2019. "Do criminally accused politicians affect economic outcomes? Evidence from India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    17. Chantal C. Cantarelli & Bent Flybjerg & Eric J. E. Molin & Bert van Wee, 2013. "Cost overruns in Large-Scale Transportation Infrastructure Projects: Explanations and Their Theoretical Embeddedness," Papers 1307.2176, arXiv.org.
    18. Plakandaras, Vasilios & Papadimitriou, Theophilos & Gogas, Periklis, 2019. "Forecasting transportation demand for the U.S. market," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 195-214.
    19. Olav Torp & Ole Jonny Klakegg, 2016. "Challenges in Cost Estimation under Uncertainty—A Case Study of the Decommissioning of Barsebäck Nuclear Power Plant," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-21, October.
    20. Winkler, Lorenz & Kilic, Onur A. & Veldman, Jasper, 2022. "Collaboration in the offshore wind farm decommissioning supply chain," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).

    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:jlands:v:13:y:2023:i:1:p:41-:d:1310404. 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.