Zhao, F.; Shi, S. and Fu, X. (2026) Research on decision-making of project financing models based on tri-reference point theory: Evidence from public-private partnerships (PPPs) in China. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 27(5), pp. 1-28. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose – Financing is a key factor in promoting project implementation and cash flow, and the choice of an appropriate financing model is a key factor in ensuring the sustainability, financial soundness, and value creation of PPP projects. Due to the uncertainty, complexity, and intertemporal nature of PPP projects, financing entities face decision-making dilemmas regarding scenario analysis, the selection of financing tools, the allocation of rights and responsibilities, and the management of risks associated with project financing options. These challenges often lead to weakened cash flow expectations and an unclear overall picture of project capital movement. Design/methodology/approach – Based on the tri-reference point theory in behavioral decision theory, this study adopts the perspective of concessionaires and fully considers the minimum requirement, status quo, and goal of PPP project financing entities. The study aims to maximize perceived value as the objective function, with the principles of public value and utility maximization serving as constraints. A theoretical model for concessionaires' financing mode selection is constructed, and a particle swarm optimization algorithm is designed to solve this problem. By examining parameter variations within the tri-reference point theory, this study investigates the financing mode selection behavior of the concessionaire. It seeks to explore how the concessionaire's reference point awareness influences its financing decisions under uncertainty, aiming to effectively apply the tri-reference point theory to explain and predict the decision-making behavior of the concessionaire within the new PPP mechanism. Findings – The results indicate that the asset securitization financing model becomes the concessionaire's preferred method when the concessionaire's minimum requirement is relatively high and its goals are moderate. In this context, the asset securitization model satisfies the concessionaire's need to pursue higher returns while safeguarding public value, making it a key focus for the concessionaire. Originality/value – The results of the study aim to inform concessionaires' decision-making in selecting a portfolio of financing models for PPP projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | financing model; particle swarm optimization; public value; public-private partnership project; tri-reference point theory |
| Index terms: | decision theory, China, complexity, financing, optimization algorithm, methodology, decision-making, variation, evidence, value creation, face, maximization, cash flow, concessionaire, movement, public value, implementation, option, scenario analysis, partnership |
| Subjects: | contractual condition, financial management, systems engineering, political science, partnership management, decision analysis, Geography, economic development, research methods, algorithms, health behaviours and lifestyles, evaluation and assessment methods, policy studies, contract type, contractual arrangements, economic analysis, psychology |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Governance, Digital Applications, Contract Administration, Organizational Design, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Risk Management, Sustainability, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here