Public Private Partnership to Brownfield Remediation Projects in China: A Combined Risk Evaluation Approach

IF 3.2 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Land Pub Date : 2024-01-03 DOI:10.3390/land13010056
Qingye Han, Yan Qin, Heng Zhang, Ginger Y. Ke
{"title":"Public Private Partnership to Brownfield Remediation Projects in China: A Combined Risk Evaluation Approach","authors":"Qingye Han, Yan Qin, Heng Zhang, Ginger Y. Ke","doi":"10.3390/land13010056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Brownfields have been receiving significant attention all over the world because of their potential threats to the environment and public health. However, a funding shortage constitutes the main obstacle to the brownfield remediation (BR). In China, to ease financial dilemmas, the governments seek collaborations with private-sector companies, i.e., the Public Private Partnership (PPP) mode. Despite all the benefits, BR and PPP contain high risks, making stakeholders extremely cautious about investing in such projects. To support the decision-making process of the public and private parties, this paper designs a comprehensive approach to evaluate the risks of BR PPP projects in China. In more detail, several commonly used risk methods, such as TOPSIS, GRE, and FSE, are employed to construct a combined risk evaluation process, which applies multiple combined evaluation techniques to iteratively integrate individual results from those methods until a valid common result is achieved. To show the practical implementation procedure of the proposed combined approach, a hypothetical case study is performed to assess the risks of seven BR PPP projects. The analytical process also verifies that the consistency and reliability of the risk evaluation result can be achieved effectively and efficiently by jointly deploying multiple risk methods through combined techniques. The proposed decision framework facilitates a novel research idea in evaluating complicated risk situations, and can be applied to other similar scenarios where uncertainties and inconsistencies are inevitable.","PeriodicalId":37702,"journal":{"name":"Land","volume":"139 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Land","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/land13010056","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Brownfields have been receiving significant attention all over the world because of their potential threats to the environment and public health. However, a funding shortage constitutes the main obstacle to the brownfield remediation (BR). In China, to ease financial dilemmas, the governments seek collaborations with private-sector companies, i.e., the Public Private Partnership (PPP) mode. Despite all the benefits, BR and PPP contain high risks, making stakeholders extremely cautious about investing in such projects. To support the decision-making process of the public and private parties, this paper designs a comprehensive approach to evaluate the risks of BR PPP projects in China. In more detail, several commonly used risk methods, such as TOPSIS, GRE, and FSE, are employed to construct a combined risk evaluation process, which applies multiple combined evaluation techniques to iteratively integrate individual results from those methods until a valid common result is achieved. To show the practical implementation procedure of the proposed combined approach, a hypothetical case study is performed to assess the risks of seven BR PPP projects. The analytical process also verifies that the consistency and reliability of the risk evaluation result can be achieved effectively and efficiently by jointly deploying multiple risk methods through combined techniques. The proposed decision framework facilitates a novel research idea in evaluating complicated risk situations, and can be applied to other similar scenarios where uncertainties and inconsistencies are inevitable.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中国棕地修复项目的公私合作:综合风险评估方法
由于棕地对环境和公众健康的潜在威胁,棕地问题一直受到全世界的高度关注。然而,资金短缺是棕地修复(BR)的主要障碍。在中国,为了缓解资金困境,政府寻求与私营企业合作,即公私合作(PPP)模式。尽管 BR 和 PPP 有诸多益处,但其中蕴含的高风险使得利益相关者对投资此类项目极为谨慎。为了支持公私双方的决策过程,本文设计了一种全面的方法来评估中国 BR PPP 项目的风险。具体而言,本文采用了几种常用的风险评估方法,如 TOPSIS、GRE 和 FSE,构建了一个综合风险评估流程,该流程应用了多种综合评估技术,对这些方法的个别结果进行迭代整合,直至得到一个有效的共同结果。为了展示所建议的组合方法的实际实施过程,我们进行了一项假设案例研究,对七个 BR PPP 项目进行了风险评估。分析过程还验证了通过组合技术联合部署多种风险方法,可以有效和高效地实现风险评估结果的一致性和可靠性。所提出的决策框架为评估复杂风险情况提供了一种新的研究思路,并可应用于其他不可避免存在不确定性和不一致性的类似情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Land
Land ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-Nature and Landscape Conservation
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
23.10%
发文量
1927
期刊介绍: Land is an international and cross-disciplinary, peer-reviewed, open access journal of land system science, landscape, soil–sediment–water systems, urban study, land–climate interactions, water–energy–land–food (WELF) nexus, biodiversity research and health nexus, land modelling and data processing, ecosystem services, and multifunctionality and sustainability etc., published monthly online by MDPI. The International Association for Landscape Ecology (IALE), European Land-use Institute (ELI), and Landscape Institute (LI) are affiliated with Land, and their members receive a discount on the article processing charge.
期刊最新文献
Rice Terrace Experience in Japan: An Ode to the Beauty of Seasonality and Nostalgia Market Access and Agricultural Diversification: An Analysis of Brazilian Municipalities The Role of Vegetation Monitoring in the Conservation of Coastal Habitats N2000: A Case Study of a Wetland Area in Southeast Sicily (Italy) Analysis of Land Suitability for Maize Production under Climate Change and Its Mitigation Potential through Crop Residue Management Public Private Partnership to Brownfield Remediation Projects in China: A Combined Risk Evaluation Approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1