Le, P T; Chileshe, N; Kirytopoulos, K and Rameezdeen, R (2020) Investigating the significance of risks in BOT transportation projects in Vietnam. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 27(6), pp. 1401-1425. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: The Built Operate Transfer (BOT) model has been increasingly used in transportation investments in Vietnam. However, there is still an inadequacy of risk management applications in these projects and lack of research in this area. The study aims to improve the success of projects implemented through the BOT model in Vietnam. Design/methodology/approach: The study followed a sequential design including interviews and a questionnaire survey to investigate the perception of stakeholders from public and private sector regarding the probability of occurrence and the severity of impact of risks in BOT transportation projects in Vietnam. Quantitative data from the survey was subjected to descriptive and inferential statistics to explore the priority of risks as well as the differences in the perception between the public and private sectors. Findings: The results showed that the top five most significant risks in BOT transportation projects in Vietnam are: (1) problems with land acquisition and compensation, (2) inappropriate location of toll booths, (3) public resistance to pay, (4) high toll rate and (5) lack of cash flow. With the exception of “lack of cash flow,” there were no statistically significant differences in the rankings of individual risks between the public and private sector. In addition, there is a significant positive correlation in the overall rankings of all risks for both sectors. Originality/value: This study contributes to the body of knowledge by exploring the probability of occurrence and the severity of the impact of risks in BOT transportation projects in a developing country like Vietnam which has not been extensively explored yet. Second, it provides an insight into the perception of stakeholders from the public and private sector regarding the level of risks which is very useful for potential stakeholders in making decisions when they intend to participate in such partnerships. Third, it enables the Vietnamese government to establish suitable policies related to such projects. These contributions are very important in improving risk management in PPPs in developing countries.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | analysis; assessment; build-operate-transfer; priority; public-private partnership; ranking transportation; risk; Vietnam |
| Index terms: | statistics, compensation, build-operate-transfer, risk management, private sector, partnership, body of knowledge, land acquisition, methodology, questionnaire, transportation project, toll, survey, Vietnam, developing country, interview, cash flow |
| Subjects: | partnership management, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, transportation engineering, financial management, research methods, Geography, development economics, real estate economics, contractual arrangements, knowledge management, data collection methods, risk assessment, mathematical modelling, dispute resolution |
| Topics: | Procurement, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Cost Management, Business Strategy, International Construction, Legal Issues, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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