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

Alireza Valipour, Hadi Sarvari and Jolanta Tamošaitiene
Additional contact information
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

Administrative Sciences, 2018, vol. 8, issue 4, 1-17

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.

Keywords: risk assessment; SWARA; COPRAS; FANP; FAHP; FTOPSIS; SAW; EDAS; PPP project (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: L M M0 M1 M10 M11 M12 M14 M15 M16 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (10)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/8/4/80/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/8/4/80/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:8:y:2018:i:4:p:80-:d:188506

Access Statistics for this article

Administrative Sciences is currently edited by Ms. Nancy Ma

More articles in Administrative Sciences from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().