Printer Friendly

The Portfolio Balanced Risk Index Model and Analysis of Examples of Large-Scale Infrastructure Project.

1. Introduction

In the near future, major infrastructure project investment will prove to be a pivotal means of improving people's livelihood and promoting a healthy and sustainable development of China's national economy. How to scientifically and reasonably carry on the dynamic evaluation will influence the control, solution, and even the success of the project. Project risk refers to the deviation between the final result and expected subject or the loss due to the existence of uncertain factors. In the joint action of internal and external environment change and multiple subject game, major infrastructure project risk is a complex and evolved dynamic making project risk evaluation more difficult. Project risk measurement methods in the existing literature include variance, standard deviation, the product of probability and loss [1], and average value of personal injury and property losses [2].

Among them, using dynamic, comparative, integrative, and average characteristics, a project risk index is a more intuitive approach reflecting the project risk in numerical form on the basis of unified dimension [3-6]; for example, coast corrosion risk index can be divided into stable, low, medium, and high level according to corrosion rate led by coastal vulnerability and development degree (Guido Benassai, et al., 2015). In order to better conduct evaluation of risk parameters, based on existing fuzzy mathematical models, like fuzzy differential equations, integrodifferential equations, group decision-making [7], interval number [8], and so forth, this paper builds a portfolio balance index model (PBIM) for project risk to reflect the multidimensional combination value losses by combined dynamic equilibrium index and provides analysis tools for early warning and monitoring. The innovation points can be listed as follows: first, it changes the common practice of the individual project subject evaluation and lets all item subjects participate in the project risk evaluation; second, psychological utility factors are added in the project risk severity evaluation, which breaks through the two-dimensional evaluation method of probability multiplying the objective loss; third, group intuitionistic fuzzy evaluation and statistical analysis are used to determine the risk parameters, which can reflect all the will and preferences of the project.

Research ideas and methods of this article are as follows: (1) to filter main risk indicators through typical case analysis, questionnaire investigation, and statistical analysis, (2) to construct risk evaluation index system and design index weight by analytic hierarchy process, (3) to build a project risk portfolio balance evaluation model and add main psychological effect factors based on traditional two-dimensional evaluation, which can make up the limitations of the evaluation of project risk material loss and at the same time make the project risk assessment have subjective and objective characteristics, and (4) to do questionnaire survey in fuzzy evaluation of project risk parameters. The average data reflects a collection of plural value preference, which can effectively make up disadvantages of single subject evaluation and make project risk assessment into a group of decision-making behaviors. A project risk index can not only make value loss explicit and comparable, but can also provide evidence to analyze and offer reasons for project changes and risk strategy.

2. The Theoretical Basis of Major Infrastructure Project Portfolio Balance Risk Index Model Construction

The risk portfolio balance index model of major infrastructure projects must be based on multidimensional value impact and evaluation of complex decision-making motivation analysis, because they jointly determine game design ideas of model parameters and a combined calculation method of risk index.

2.1. The Subjective and Objective Value of Project Risk Impact Analysis. General project risk evaluation only considers the probability of occurrence and the objective severity; however, project risk bears the characteristics of subjectivity and objectivity. Risk is the result of subjective evaluation wherein even the same project risk has different implications for different subject [9]. As a result, subject factors must be considered in risk assessment. The aim of rational behavior subject is to pursue comprehensive utility maximization [10] instead of simple profit maximization.

Project risk evaluation should not only consider objective value losses, but also measure the damage to the subject itself and others' well-being and satisfaction [11]. Therefore, a three-dimensional evaluation method used in project risk assessment (probability + objective severity + subjective utility loss) is a more scientific approach than the usual two-dimensional evaluation method (probability + objective severity). Objective loss refers to material loss caused by problems to project value such as a decrease of project quality, construction schedule delay, safety performance degradation, profit reduction, and rising costs. Subjective utility cost refers to all types of emotional damage and the subjective judgment value decline led by the risk to project subject. Emotional damage includes psychological fear, anxiety, frustration, discontent, injustice, and impatience.

2.2. The Complex Psychological Motivation Analysis of Evaluation Subject. Behavioral economics describes associated subjects of major infrastructure projects as "complex economic men." They have many preferences including risk aversion, altruism, and fairness preference. When evaluating project risk, they not only consider their own risk losses, but also take the risk of other associated subjects into account. They not only consider the material loss brought on by the risk, but also consider psychology utility loss. A project subject is based on a complex collection of preferences when making risk assessment decisions [12, 13]. In order to validate the above viewpoint, the questionnaire shown in Table 1 investigates the complex evaluation motivation of a project subject.

Issuing 100 questionnaires to related subjects of major infrastructure project in a mobile Internet platform, we had 96 valid questionnaires returned, indicating that 96% of respondents would both consider the social, environmental, and ecological value loss, while only 4% of respondents reported they would only consider the economic loss. Of respondents, 89% stated they would also consider personal emotion, risk capacity, and psychological disutility, and only 11% of the respondents would merely consider material loss. Of respondents, 82% said they would consider the interest and feelings of other related subjects, while only 18% reported they would consider only their own interest loss and subjective feeling. 98% of respondents indicated they would both consider other related subjects' behavior strategy reactions, and only 2% of the respondents would only consider their own behavior strategy. The survey suggests that most related subjects would consider economic, social, environmental, and ecological value loss, nonmaterial psychological utility cost, and behavior strategy reactions of correlation subjects. Therefore, building a framework, which contains factors such as risk probability, objective severity, and psychological utility loss makes the interactive equilibrium evaluation a more reasonable and scientific approach.

3. Construction of a Project Risk Portfolio Balance Evaluation Index System of a Major Infrastructure Project

The construction of an evaluation index system is the key to calculating a project risk index and to screen and sort risk factors within the whole life cycle of a major infrastructure project based on many case studies and questionnaires. The objective is to use the principles of importance, representativeness, and conciseness and to select appropriate main risk factors in order to form a project risk evaluation index system according to the nature of the classification.

(1) Questionnaire and Statistical Analysis of Project Risk Factors Screening. First, the main risk factors based on many case studies throughout the life cycle of major infrastructure projects are listed [14]. Then, the project risk factors list is sent to the related subjects for their additional inclusions or modifications in order to determine the main project risk factors which are established after 2-3 rounds of feedback and changes. Finally, respondents would score the occurrence probability and severity of risk factors by five-mark scoring. For the occurrence probability of risk factors, five-mark scoring ranges are as follows: 1 = extremely unlikely, 2 = slim chance, 3 = certain possibility, 4 = high possibility, and 5 = most likely. For the severity of the risk factors, five-mark scoring ranges as follows: 1 = mild, 2 = milder, 3 = generally serious, 4 = serious, and 5 = very serious. Using SPSS17.0 software to statistically analyze 96 questionnaires, the mean, median, mode, and standard deviation [15] of all the risk factors' probability and severity evaluation are as shown in Table 2.

(2) The Importance Sequence of Project Risk Factors. According to the results shown in Table 2, we are required to rank the importance of the project risk factors based on the product size of probability and severity average. Results are shown in Table 3.

(3) The Choice and Grouping of Major Project Risk Factors. According to the sequence of risk factors shown in Table 3, we selected the top 50% of risk factors to construct a major infrastructure project risk evaluation index system, shown in Table 4. Owing to the uniqueness of each major infrastructure project, the indicators in Table 4 can be properly adjusted to a specific project risk assessment.

4. Construction of a Combinational Balanced Risk Index Model

The construction idea of a portfolio balanced risk index model is based on clear index connotation and principle. This includes calculating individual risk index through the base model and then calculating the project classification and balanced risk index by using the method of weighted portfolio addition [16].

4.1. Construction Principles of a Combinational Balanced Risk Index

4.1.1. Portfolio Addition Principle. The construction principle of portfolio balanced risk index is as follows: the project overall risk index is composed of six secondary indexes including (1) management risk index, (2) technology risk index, (3) economic risk index, (4) social risk index, (5) legal risk index, and (6) natural risk index; in addition, a secondary index is made up of several three-level indexes. In the process of portfolio addition, expert evaluation method is used to analyze the importance level of the index in order to determine the weight of each index so as to reach the weighted synthesis step by step.

4.1.2. Balance Reflects Risk Value Preference Principle of Multiple Subjects. The portfolio balanced risk index is a comprehensive reflection of the value of multivariate subjects' preferences and interests. Through the questionnaire survey of probability of project risk factors, objective severity and subjective opinions and preferences of all projects can be reflected in the project risk parameters.

4.1.3. Dynamic Comparable Principle. The portfolio balanced risk index reflects the size of the project risk and comparability between different periods of project risk. For example, if the projects' risks index in t3 is 0.3 and in t2 is 0.2, then the project risk in t2 is smaller than t3.

4.2. The Basic Model of Portfolio Balanced Risk Index. The portfolio balanced risk index is the function of three variables: risk probability, objective severity, and subject negative feelings as shown in (1). The project risk coefficient value is in the range of 0~1; the greater the value, the greater the project risk is [17,18].

[RI.sub.i] = f([P.sub.i], [V.sub.i], [F.sub.i]) = [P'.sub.i] x [V'.sub.i] x [F'.sub.i]. (1)

Index definition: [RI.sub.i] is single factor risk index; [P'.sub.i] is probability coefficient; [V'.sub.i] is objective gravity coefficient; [F'.sub.i] is subjective feeling coefficient; [P'.sub.i] = [[bar.P].sub.i]/5 (probability coefficient is equal to probability scoring mean of all the main projects concerning risk i and the ratio of the maximum possible value); [V'.sub.i] = [[bar.V].sub.i]/5 (objective gravity coefficient is equal to objective gravity mean of all the main projects concerning risk i and the ratio of the maximum possible value); [F'.sub.i] = [[bar.F].sub.i]/3 (subjective feeling coefficient is equal to subjective feeling mean of all the main projects concerning risk i and the ratio of the intermediate value; if the subject of subjective evaluation is over the median 3, the psychological effect is amplified or the project risk is narrowed and vice versa).

The source data of [[bar.P].sub.i], [[bar.V].sub.i], [[bar.F].sub.i] are scoring risk probability, objective severity, and subjective feeling on a related project by five-mark scoring to obtain the scores {[P.sub.i]}, [[V.sub.i]}, {[F.sub.i]},and then use SPSS software to calculate the mean [[bar.P].sub.i], [[bar.V].sub.i], [[bar.F].sub.i].

The fuzzy evaluation principle is as follows: for risk probability, five-mark scoring ranges from 1 = extremely unlikely, 2 = slim chance, 3 = certain possibility, 4 = high possibility, and 5 = most likely; for objective severity, five-mark scoring ranges from 1 = the influence of the objective value of the project can be ignored, 2 = slightly, 3 = generally serious, 4 = serious, and 5 = very serious; for subjective feelings, five-mark scoring ranges from 1 = psychological negative impact is very small and completely tolerable, 2 = psychological negative influence is small and tolerable, 3 = appropriate psychological negative influence which can be withstood, 4 = psychological negative impact is larger and can barely be afforded, and 5 = psychological negative effect is very serious and hard to bear [19, 20].

4.3. The Calculation of Risk Classification. Risk classification index is calculated by weighted average method of each single index; the formula is in

CRI = [m.summation over (i=1)][RI.sub.i]; x [w.sub.i], (2)

where CRI is portfolio balanced project risk index; [RI.sub.i] is single factor portfolio balanced project risk index; [w.sub.i] are single factor weights.

4.4. The Calculation of Portfolio Risk Index. The portfolio risk index is calculated by weighted average method of natural, social, legal, economic, management, and technology classification. The calculation formula is in

PRI = [n.summation over (l=1)] [w.sub.l] x [m.summation over (i=1)] x [RI.sub.i] x [w.sub.i]. (3)

4.5. Establishment of a Project Risk Index Weight. Based on AHP method, this includes forming a discriminant matrix first by the importance of the comparison between two indicators at the same level and then calculating the index weight. The specific process is as follows.

4.5.1. To Build a Project Risk Hierarchical Structure. The project risk hierarchical structure of risk evaluation index system is shown in Figure 1.

4.5.2. To Build the Discriminant Matrix and Assignment. The importance scales and their meaning are shown in Table 5.

The discriminant matrix, after soliciting opinions from experts, is shown in Table 6.

4.5.3. The Calculation and Test of Weight. Using the sum method to calculate the weight and to get the arithmetic mean of the column vectors as the final weight is shown in (4). In addition, to limit the deviation of discriminant matrix in a certain range, we needed to undertake a consistency check with CR; when CR < 0.1, the consistency of discriminant matrix is acceptable

[W.sub.i] = 1/n [n.summation over (j=1)][a.sub.ij]/[[summation.sup.n.sub.k=1][a.sub.kl] (4)

5. Example Analyses

The Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge (HZMB) is an oversized bridge-tunnel project linking Hong Kong, Zhuhai, and Macau, with a total length of 49.968 kilometers and a total investment of 72.9 billion Yuan. It is a world-class sea-crossing passageway of national strategic significance. With project construction projected to be 7 years, construction began in December 2009 and will be completed in 2017. It will be the world's longest six-lane driving immersed tunnel and in distance the world's longest sea-crossing bridge-tunnel road. Next we will evaluate and analyze the HZMB using a combinational balanced risk index model.

5.1. The Main Project Risk Identification in Construction Phase. In addition to the common features every large project generally shares such as large scale, tight construction period, high level of difficulty, and heightened risk, the HZMB also contends with the characteristics of high social attention, coconstruction, and coadministration by three distinct governments and complicated navigation environment constraints such as white dolphin conservation. On the basis of investigation and access to second-hand data, it is concluded that the HZMB construction stages of the main project risks are as follows.

5.1.1. Technical Risk

(1) Risk of Being Poorly Designed. The sea areas of the HZMB are the world's most important trade channel with extensive air- and waterways. The design height of the bridge cannot be too low because of the normal passage of tonnage ships. At the same time, the height of the bridge deck and bridge tower cannot be too high or it will affect the normal takeoff and landing of planes.

(2) Technology Innovation Risk. The HZMB project is the construction of the world's longest immersed deep-water tunnel, requiring numerous technological innovations. For example, the connection between the bridge and the tunnel requires an artificial island to be constructed using a grouping of giant round steel cylinders fixed directly onto the seabed and then filled with earth in order to form the man-made island. For Chinese engineers this is a first endeavor at creating this type of structure and, therefore, it includes high levels of uncertainty.

5.1.2. Economic Risk

(1) Risk of Nontimely Funding. With an investment of over 70 billion Yuan, the financing of this project has been the subject of much debate including issues such as who will invest and how to allocate investment proportion from the decisionmaking stage to the time when the bridge officially started. The principal financing risk is whether all involved parties can provide project construction funds at the appropriate time.

(2) Risk of Rising Costs. On one hand, inflation causes a rise in the price of materials; even if it specifies the value adjusting formula in the contract terms, it is hard to fully compensate the loss caused by the rising cost of raw materials in the future. On the other hand, the frequent changes of complicated construction conditions will cause the rise of cost control risk.

5.1.3. Social Risk

(1) Risk of Regional System Differences. The HZMB belongs to the coconstruction and coadministration of three distinct governments and involves the policy of "one country, two systems." The interest orientation of all governments, laws and regulations, administrative systems, management procedures, and technical standard requirements vary thereby creating innumerable challenges and difficulties in coordination efforts.

(2) Public-Against-Project Risks. The project has a significant impact on local natural ecological environment and the lives of the public making it easy to trigger social dissatisfaction and opposition if mishandled.

5.1.4. Natural Risk

(1) Typhoon Risk. Typhoons are common in the Lingdingyang Bay and pass through the South China Sea every year with more than 200 days a year reporting a wind speed of 6 magnitude. Consequently, the wind action will naturally move the steel with the same frequency which can produce resonance and cause destructive effects on the bridge.

(2) Earthquake Risk. Construction of the HZMB faces a serious challenge in the form of an earthquake. It is difficult to predict earthquake risk because of complex seabed structure. An earthquake would cause horizontal and vertical deformation and destruction of the tunnel and differences in movement and rotation in the tunnel socket joints, after which the project would be a total loss.

(3) Chloride Salt Corrosion Risk. Experiments show that the reinforced concrete will rust under the action of chlorine salt corrosion and eventually result in cracking and peeling of the concrete. How to ensure a service life of 120 years for the bridge is uncertain.

5.1.5. Management Risk

(1) Schedule Control Risk. The main body construction began in December 2009 and was projected to be completed by the end of 2016. However, whether the project can be completed smoothly has become a great challenge due to hydrological and meteorological factors as well as less effective working days.

(2) Quality Management Risk. The construction project is difficult with many operation points, long duration, synchronous operation, and crossover operation processes. The complicated meteorology in Lingdingyang Bay can easily lead to negligence in the quality of management.

(3) Safety Management Risk. The construction environment is very poor due to many factors including a large tidal range, quick water flow, various flow directions, high waves, deep scour, thick, soft ground, and frequent typhoons that endanger the safety of the workers and the construction creating an environment where injuries and property losses are probable.

5.1.6. Legal Risk. The nature of the project attracts an international financial clique desiring to invest in the form of BOT. However, in view of the different legal systems of Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macao, this may involve some legal conflict and blind areas. If legal blind areas are used by financial clique and some funds are reserved in the contract, the bridge construction may fall into endless legal disputes.

5.2. The Construction of Project Risk Evaluation Index System in Construction Stage. Based on the above project risks, to construct a project risk evaluation index system according to the AHP method, as shown in Table 7, some appropriate adjustments of indexes are made in line with the project.

5.3. Calculation of Portfolio Balanced Risk Index in Initial Construction Stage

5.3.1. Probability and Severity Investigation of Project Risk Factors. Invite 30 related subjects from the project construction unit, as well as investors and government departments in order to score the probability, severity, objectivity, and subjectivity of single risk factor in the HZMB construction stage, and then calculate the average by SPSS17.0.

5.3.2. Calculation of Single Risk Factor Parameter. Calculate, respectively, probability, objective severity, and subjective feeling coefficient of a single factor according to the survey results in Table 8 and the equation in Section 4.2, as shown in Table 9.

5.3.3. Calculation of Classification and Portfolio Risk Index. Use weighted addition to obtain project risk classification index according to single risk factor index shown in Table 10 and obtain portfolio risk index in the same way; then calculate index weight by AHP method; the final results are shown in Table 10.

5.4. The Calculation of Risk Index in Medium-Term Construction Stage. Calculate the classification and portfolio risk index of the HZMB in medium-term according to the abovementioned method to reorganize investigation and collect basic data, as shown in Table 11.

5.5. Comparative Analysis of Project Risk Index in Early-and Mid-Construction. The portfolio balanced project risk index in early 2010 and middle 2012 is obtained through the above-mentioned calculation, as shown in Table 12. It is clear that the portfolio balanced project risk index fall is very obvious, and technology risk index and management risk index decrease dramatically, which is in accord with our intuitive understanding.

The combinational balanced risk index of this project in 2010 was 0.38, showing if all kinds of risk factors were not well controlled or changed; about 38% expected value will be lost after their interaction. The combinational balanced risk index in 2012 was 0.15, showing only about 15% projects could not achieve expected value. The main reason for these dramatic declines is that related subjects accumulate substantial knowledge and experience and significantly improve the knowledge level and behavior ability during the construction process. In addition, after a running-in period, the cooperation relationship between subjects is effectively improved. Moreover, the subjects actively explore and innovate in areas such as technology research and development, plan design, government cooperation mechanism, and international BOT financing and formulate a series of effective countermeasures such as (1) largely eliminating and weakening the force between the seismic energy by using polymer rubber materials; (2) developing high-performance concrete to resist the erosion from chlorine salt on concrete in sea water; (3) devising a creative installation method to ensure that the crane tower height is less than 120 meters; (4) establishing a coordination team led by the National Development and Reform Commission to eliminate organizational difficulties arising from three governments and the risks brought on by varying legal demands and management systems; and (5) inviting lawyers familiar with international BOT legal business to study the contract details, risk control, and so on.

5.6. Early Warning Analysis of Project Risk Index. In order to dynamically monitor and analyze early warning project risks, we can set the risk index threshold through the investigation of the risk bearing capacity and the degree of acceptance of the risk by the subjects, combined with the risk loss, and divide different levels of risk early warning intervals and set up corresponding risk countermeasures [21] as shown in Table 13, in order to ensure the appropriate measures be initiated according to the level of risk.

This study shows that the portfolio balanced risk index of the HZMB reaches above the orange line in initial construction stage, while it drops below the orange line and enters a relative safety area in the median-term construction.

6. Conclusion and Discussion

In this article, a combination of behavioral science, questionnaire method, statistical analysis, and fuzzy evaluation is used to construct a portfolio balanced index model in order to dynamically evaluate the risk factors of major infrastructure projects and to measure the combined loss of project risk to project subjects. PBIM is an effective and powerful tool for risk evaluation and monitoring of major infrastructure projects. Our conclusions are as follows.

(1) From the perspective of project entity utility, the risk of major infrastructure projects is not only related to the probability of occurrence of project risks, loss of objective value caused by risks, but also to the risk bearing capacity, emotional factors, and psychological utility of the project subjects. These factors need to be systematically balanced, considered, and measured in combination so as to fully evaluate the overall value loss of the project risk.

(2) A project risk index constructed on the basis of portfolio balanced evaluation has strong inclusiveness. This is accomplished through questionnaires and scenario investigation of the multiproject related subjects, the selection of project risk index and the design of relevant parameters reflecting the collective value preference of multiproject subjects, multiple psychological utility, and behavioral strategy interaction factors, and eliminating the limitations of a single subject closed evaluation of project risk.

(3) The combined equilibrium risk index is simple and intuitive for reflecting the size of the project risk, which can directly compare the risks of different projects and the same project in different periods, not only to determine the relevance of the main project feasibility and the size of the potential risk in order to provide an effective analysis tool, but also, according to the Early Warning Interval of Project risk index, to help the project in relation to the main control and resolving of risk.

(4) The main body of the major infrastructure project has complex risk evaluation decision motive; this includes avoidance of their own risk for self-interest motive needs, but also an interactive fairness and altruism motive, whereby the motivation to evaluate project risk is a complex preference set. This preference set affects the evaluation decision of the subject. For this reason, the preference set of the multiple project subjects can be displayed by means of group survey.

It should be noted that we principally used fuzzy mathematics and the questionnaire method to evaluate the risk factors of major infrastructure projects, and these methods have certain imprecision and subjectivity. However, this procedure is consistent with the characteristics of major infrastructure project risk and behavior decision-making and is also a scientific approach. In the next study, we will shorten the observation time for specific projects, extract more comprehensive data, and conduct a more detailed study of the evolution of a project risk index.

https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5174613

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

This paper is funded by NNSF of China (71171203, 71671187) and Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (2015JJ2025).

References

[1] B. Du, X. Liu, and W. Qiu, "Risk index modeling and simulation analysis for engineering project," Science & Technology Progress and Policy, no. 21, pp. 81-84, 2009.

[2] Z.-Q. Hou and Y.-M. Zeng, "Research on risk assessment technology of the major hazard in harbor engineering," Procedia Engineering, vol. 137, pp. 843-848, 2016.

[3] J. Chen and Y. Yang, "A predictive risk index for safety performance in process industries," Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 233-242, 2004.

[4] L. He and Y. Chen, "A risk index evaluation method for expressway traffic network interruption cause," Journal of Dalian Maritime University, no. 3, pp. 69-72, 2012.

[5] C. Dai, L. Wang, and M. Huang, "Risk assessment of urban tunnel construction," Journal of Beijing Technology University, no. 2, pp. 250-256, 2012.

[6] J. Park, B. Park, Y. Cha, and C. Hyun, "Risk factors assessment considering change degree for mega-projects," Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 218, pp. 50-55, 2016.

[7] P. Li and J. Zhu, "Large-scale group decision making method based on new intuitionistic fuzzy similarity," Operations Research and Management Science, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 167-174, 2014.

[8] X. Liu, J. Zhu, and F. Liu, "Relative shangqun decision method for interval number of uncertain preference schemes," Chinese Journal of Management Science, vol. 22, no. 6, 2014.

[9] Y. Liu, "The influences of the role of decision-makers and related factors on risk preference," Psychological Science, no. 3, pp. 548-551, 2010.

[10] H. Bleichrodt, "Reference-dependent expected utility with incomplete preferences," Journal of Mathematical Psychology, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 287-293, 2009.

[11] P Conceicao and R. Bandro, "Subjective well-being research literature review," Foreign Theoretical Trends, no. 7, pp. 10-12, 2013.

[12] S. Teyssier, "Inequity and risk aversion in sequential public good games," Public Choice, vol. 151, no. 1-2, pp. 91-119, 2012.

[13] K. Schurter and B. J. Wilson, "Justice and fairness in the dictator game," Southern Economic Journal, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 130-145, 2009.

[14] X. Yuan, Y. Ke, and S. Wang, "Case-based analysis of the main risk factors of PPP projects in China," Chinese Soft Science, no. 5, pp. 107-113, 2009.

[15] X. Qin and L. Jing, "Risk assessment and analysis of green building life cycle: the exploration based on questionnaire," Civil Engineering Journal, no. 8, pp. 123-135, 2013.

[16] P. Guo, "Research on the portfolio risk of high-tech projects based on project interaction," Science and Technology Management, no. 6, pp. 5-9, 2009.

[17] H.-N. Zhu, X.-Z. Yuan, G.-M. Zeng et al., "Ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in sediments of Xiawan port based on modified potential ecological risk index," Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 1470-1477, 2012.

[18] J. J. Drewry, L. T. H. Newham, and R. S. B. Greene, "Index models to evaluate the risk of phosphorus and nitrogen loss at catchment scales," Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 639-649, 2011.

[19] Y. Gao, H. Li, and G. Zhang, "Dynamic fuzzy evaluation of project risk based on cooperation," Journal of Dalian Technology University, no. 3, pp. 404-408, 2010.

[20] Y. Yuan, "Multi-criteria decision-making model based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy number correlation coefficient," Journal of Management Sciences, no. 4, pp. 11-18, 2014.

[21] R. Liu, X. Liu, M. Rong, and X. Qing, "Risk assessment method of government investment project governance," Soft Science, no. 2, pp. 29-35, 2011.

Wu Gao (1,2) and Kairong Hong (1)

(1) Business School, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China

(2) Department of City Management, Hunan City University, Yiyang 413000, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Wu Gao; gw740620@sina.com

Received 17 March 2017; Accepted 20 April 2017; Published 14 May 2017

Academic Editor: Omar Abu Arqub

Caption: Figure 1: The hierarchy of project risk index.

Table 1: Subject risk evaluation motivation questionnaire of
major infrastructure projects.

Answer choices       Survey questions

[] Only consider     (1) Whether you only consider the economic
the former           loss or you consider the social,
[] Consider all      environmental and ecological value loss
factors              when evaluating project risk?
[] Only consider     (2) Whether you only consider the material
the former           loss or you consider the personal emotion,
[] Consider all      risk capacity and psychological disutility
factors              when evaluating project risk?
[] Only consider     (3) Whether you consider only your own
the former           interest loss and subjective feeling or
[] Consider both     both the interest loss and feelings of
                     other related subjects when evaluating
                     project risk?
[] Only consider     (4) If you do the project risk evaluation,
the former           do you prefer to consider your own
[] Consider both     behavior strategy, or consider other
                     related subject behavior strategy
                     reactions caused by your own evaluation
                     behavior?

Table 2: Survey results of main risk factors through the whole life
cycle of a major infrastructure project.

Stages         Sequence                   Risk factors
                number

                  1               Incorrect project orientation
                  2            Incorrect market demand forecasting
                  3            Thoughtless about inflation impact
                  4       Incorrect estimation about project investment
Decision          6        Incorrect estimation about investment return
stage             6          Thoughtless about financing difficulty
                  7                 Government policy changes
                  8           Lack of external experts consultation
                  9             Thoughtless about project impact
                  10         Wrong decision-making process or method
                  11        Inability or inexperience of design team
                  12      Lack of field investigation and not adjusting
                                  measures to local conditions
Design            13       Insufficient communication between designer
stage                                       and owner
                  14        Lack of innovation and applicability of
                                           design plan
                  15          Lack of designers' full participation
                  16       Instability of safety equipment performance
                  17          Financing difficulty or rising costs
                  18           Improved environmental protection
                                requirements on construction site
                  19       Materials and equipment supply not in time
                  20       Lack of experienced construction personnel
                  21      Inability or irresponsibility of contractors
                  22      Inability or irresponsibility of supervisors
Construction      23                    Nontimely funding
stage             24                 Material price increase
                  26      Lack of scientific construction process and
                                             method
                  26            Legal disputes of related subject
                  27         Worsening social order of project area
                  28         Opposition and obstruction to project
                                          construction
                  29       Lack of good communication and cooperation
                                         among subjects
                  30         Bad weather or major natural disasters
                  31        Trial operation effect can not meet the
                                       design requirements
                  32          Instability of equipment performance
                  33         Speedy technology and equipment renewal
                  34      Technology and equipment maintenance is not
                                             timely
Operation         36                 Rising operating costs
stage             36                      Sudden events
                  36                 Major natural disasters
                  37          Lack of a clear accountability system
                  38       Lack of operation management or experiences

                                     Occurrence probability
Stages         Sequence
                number    Mean    Median   Mode   Standard deviation

                  1       3.188    3.0     3.0          0.734
                  2       3.958    4.0     3.0          0.824
                  3       3.083    3.0     3.0          0.739
                  4       3.25     3.0     3.0          0.526
Decision          6       3.167    3.0     3.0          0.559
stage             6       3.25     3.0     3.0          0.526
                  7       3.417    3.0     3.0          0.767
                  8       3.167    3.0     3.0          0.695
                  9       3.167    3.0     3.0          0.559
                  10      3.688    3.0     3.0          0.829
                  11      3.167    3.0     3.0          0.559
                  12      3.25     3.0     3.0          0.526
Design            13      3.167    3.0     3.0          0.559
stage
                  14      3.646    3.0     3.0          0.812
                  15      3.02     3.0     3.0          0.699
                  16      3.166    3.0     3.0          0.695
                  17      3.25     3.0     3.0          0.526
                  18      3.164    3.0     3.0          0.559
                  19      3.25     3.0     3.0          0.526
                  20      3.25     3.0     3.0          0.526
                  21      3.333    3.0     3.0          0.519
                  22      3.25     3.0     3.0          0.526
Construction      23      3.833    4.0     3.0          0.883
stage             24      3.375    3.0     3.0          0.489
                  26      3.771    4.0     4.0          0.857
                  26      3.374    3.0     3.0          0.489
                  27      3.333    3.0     3.0          0.519
                  28      3.125    3.0     3.0          0.703
                  29      3.917    4.0     3.0          0.821
                  30      2.958    3.0     3.0          0.713
                  31      3.083    3.0     3.0          0.739
                  32      3.25     3.0     3.0          0.526
                  33      3.373    3.0     3.0          0.489
                  34      3.333    3.0     3.0          0.519
Operation         36      3.083    3.0     3.0          0.739
stage             36      2.979    3.0     3.0          0.699
                  36      2.958    3.0     3.0          0.713
                  37      3.371    3.0     3.0          0.489
                  38      3.333    3.0     3.0          0.519

                                      Severity
Stages         Sequence
                number    Mean    Median   Mode     S.D

                  1       4.083    4.0      4.0    0.767
                  2       3.646    4.0      4.0    0.911
                  3       3.195    3.0      3.0    0.798
                  4       3.229    3.0      3.0    0.515
Decision          6       3.125    3.0      3.0    0.64
stage             6       3.083    3.0      3.0    0.739
                  7        3.5     3.0      3.0    0.744
                  8       3.229    3.0      3.0    0.515
                  9       3.125    3.0      3.0    0.64
                  10      3.396    3.0      3.0    0.792
                  11      3.125    3.0      3.0    0.64
                  12      3.229    3.0      3.0    0.515
Design            13      3.021    3.0      3.0    0.699
stage
                  14      3.833    4.0      3.0    0.834
                  15      3.229    3.0      3.0    0.515
                  16      3.124    3.0      3.0    0.64
                  17      3.229    3.0      3.0    0.515
                  18      3.123    3.0      3.0    0.64
                  19      3.229    3.0      3.0    0.515
                  20      3.146    3.0      3.0    0.772
                  21      3.271    3.0      3.0    0.536
                  22      3.229    3.0      3.0    0.515
Construction      23      3.896    4.0      4.0    0.831
stage             24      3.292    3.0      3.0    0.504
                  26      3.833    4.0      3.0    0.808
                  26      3.291    3.0      3.0    0.504
                  27      3.271    3.0      3.0    0.536
                  28      3.958    4.0      3.0    0.824
                  29      3.75     4.0      3.0    0.863
                  30      3.875    4.0      3.0    0.841
                  31      3.125    3.0      3.0    0.64
                  32      3.229    3.0      3.0    0.515
                  33      3.290    3.0      3.0    0.504
                  34      3.271    3.0      3.0    0.536
Operation         36      3.188    3.0      3.0    0.798
stage             36      3.292    3.0      3.0    0.504
                  36      3.917    4.0      3.0    0.846
                  37      3.289    3.0      3.0    0.504
                  38      3.271    3.0      3.0    0.536

Table 3: Main risk factors sequence through the whole life cycle of a
major infrastructure project.

Importance                      Project risk factors
sequence

1                          Incorrect project orientation
4                       Incorrect market demand forecasting
34                       Thoughtless about inflation impact
20                 Incorrect estimation about project investment
29             Incorrect estimation about return on investment (ROI)
28                     Thoughtless about financing difficulty
9                   Incorrect estimation about investment return
26                     Thoughtless about financing difficulty
30                           Government policy changes
7                      Lack of external experts consultation
31                        Thoughtless about project impact
21           Lack of field investigation and not adjusting measures to
                                  local conditions
39             Insufficient communication between designer and owner
5               Lack of innovation and applicability of design plan
37                     Lack of designers' full participation
32                  Instability of safety equipment performance
22                      Financing difficulty or rising costs
33               Improved environmental protection requirements on
                                 construction site
23                   Materials and equipment supply not on time
27                   Lack of experienced construction personnel
16                  Inability or irresponsibility of contractors
24                  Inability or irresponsibility of supervisors
6                                Nontimely funding
12                            Material price increase
3                 Lack scientific construction process and method
13                       Legal disputes of related subject
17                     Worsening social order of project area
8                Opposition and obstruction to project construction
2              Lack good communication and cooperation among subjects
11                     Bad weather or major natural disasters
38                Trial operation effect can not meet the design
                                    requirements
25                      Instability of equipment performance
14                    Speedy technology and equipment renewal
18               Technology and equipment maintenance is not timely
35                             Rising operating costs
36                                 Sudden events
10                            Major natural disasters
15                     Lack of a clear accountability system
19                  Lack of operation management or experiences

Importance   Probability   Severity     Probability
sequence       average     average       average x
                                      Severity average

1               3.833       3.896          14.93
4               3.958       3.646          14.43
34              3.083       3.195           9.85
20              3.25        3.229          10.49
29              3.167       3.125           9.90
28              3.25        3.083          10.02
9               3.417        3.5           11.96
26              3.167       3.229          10.23
30              3.167       3.125           9.90
7               3.688       3.396          12.52
31              3.167       3.125           9.90
21              3.25        3.229          10.49
39              3.167       3.021           9.57
5               3.646       3.833          13.98
37              3.02        3.229           9.75
32              3.166       3.124           9.89
22              3.25        3.229          10.49
33              3.164       3.123           9.87
23              3.25        3.229          10.49
27              3.25        3.146          10.22
16              3.333       3.271           10.9
24              3.25        3.229          10.49
6               3.188       4.083          13.02
12              3.375       3.292          11.11
3               3.771       3.833          14.45
13              3.374       3.291          11.10
17              3.333       3.271          10.90
8               3.125       3.958          12.37
2               3.917        3.75          14.69
11              2.958       3.875          11.46
38              3.083       3.125           9.63
25              3.25        3.229          10.49
14              3.373       3.290          11.09
18              3.333       3.271          10.90
35              3.083       3.188           9.83
36              2.979       3.292           9.81
10              2.958       3.917          11.59
15              3.371       3.289          11.07
19              3.333       3.271          10.90

Table 4: Portfolio balanced risk index system of a major
infrastructure project.

The target         The                   The secondary risk
layer            primary
                   Risk

The             Technical    Lack scientific construction process and
combinational   risk (TR)               method ([TR.sub.1])
balanced risk                  Poor creativity and applicability of
                                      design plan ([TR.sub.2])
                                  Speedy technology and equipment
                                            ([TR.sub.3])
                                 Inability or irresponsibility of
                                      contractors ([TR.sub.4])
                              Technology and equipment maintenance is
                                      not timely ([TR.sub.5])
                                   Nontimely funding ([ER.sub.1])
                Economic        Material price increase ([ER.sub.2])
                risk (ER)       Incorrect market demand forecasting
                                            ([ER.sub.3])
                               Financing difficulty or rising costs
                                            ([ER.sub.4])
                 Social        Opposition and obstruction to project
                risk (SR)                construction (SR1)
                               Government policy changes ([SR.sub.2])
                              Worsening social order of project area
                                            ([SR.sub.3])
                 Natural        Major natural disasters ([NR.sub.1])
                risk (NR)             Bad weather ([NR.sub.2])
                              Lack good communication and cooperation
                                    among subjects ([MR.sub.1])
                Management   Incorrect project orientation ([MR.sub.2])
                risk (MR)    Wrong decision-making procedure or method
                                            ([MR.sub.3])
                               Lack of a clear accountability system
                                            ([MR.sub.4])
                  Legal           Contract inadequacy ([LR.sub.1])
                risk (LR)    Low contracture capability of cooperative
                                      enterprise ([LR.sub.2])

Table 5: The Importance scale.

Importance    Meaning
scale

1             Comparison between two factors, the former is equally as
              important as the latter

3             Comparison between two factors, the former is slightly
              more important than the latter

5             Comparison between two factors, the former is obviously
              more important than the latter

7             Comparison between two factors, the former is strongly
              more important than the latter

9             Comparison between two factors, the former is extremely
              more important than the latter

2, 4, 6, 8    Median value of above judgment
Inverse       If the importance percentage of factor I and factor j is
              [a.sub.ij], then the importance percentage of factor j
              and factor I is 1/[a.sub.ij]

Table 6: The discriminant matrix.

A            [B.sub.1]    [B.sub.2]    [B.sub.3]

[B.sub.1]        1        [a.sub.12]   [a.sub.13]
[B.sub.2]    [a.sub.21]       1        [a.sub.23]
[B.sub.3]    [a.sub.31]   [a.sub.32]       1
[B.sub.4]    [a.sub.41]   [a.sub.42]   [a.sub.43]
[B.sub.5]    [a.sub.51]   [a.sub.52]   [a.sub.53]
[B.sub.6]    [a.sub.61]   [a.sub.62]   [a.sub.63]

A            [B.sub.4]    [B.sub.5]    [B.sub.6]

[B.sub.1]    [a.sub.14]   [a.sub.15]   [a.sub.16]
[B.sub.2]    [a.sub.24]   [a.sub.25]   [a.sub.26]
[B.sub.3]    [a.sub.34]   [a.sub.35]   [a.sub.36]
[B.sub.4]        1        [a.sub.45]   [a.sub.46]
[B.sub.5]    [a.sub.54]       1        [a.sub.56]
[B.sub.6]    [a.sub.64]   [a.sub.65]       1

Table 7: Risk evaluation index system in construction stage.

Primary index   Secondary index   Third-grade index

The CTR of      Technical risk    Risk of being poorly designed
the HZMB in     ([R.sub.1])       ([R.sub.11])
construction                      Innovation risk ([R.sub.12])
stage           Economic risk     Risk of nontimely funding
                ([R.sub.2])       ([R.sub.21])
                                  The risk of rising costs ([R.sub.22])
                Social risk       The risk of regional system
                ([R.sub.3])       differences ([R.sub.31])
                                  The public against risks ([R.sub.32])
                                  Typhoon risk ([R.sub.41])
                Nature risk       Earthquake risk ([R.sub.42])
                ([R.sub.4])       Chloride salt corrosion risk
                                  ([R.sub.43])
                                  Schedule control risk ([R.sub.51])
                Management risk   Quality management risk ([R.sub.52])
                ([R.sub.5])       Safety management risk ([R.sub.53])
                Legal risk        Legal conflict or blind area risk
                ([R.sub.6])       ([R.sub.61])

Table 8: Three-dimensional evaluation data of single risk factor in the
HZMB initial construction stage.

Stage          Sequence    Risk factors

Initial        1           Risk of being poorly designed ([R.sub.11])
construction   2           Innovation risk ([R.sub.12])
stage          3           Risk of nontimely funding ([R.sub.21])
               4           The risk of rising costs ([R.sub.22])
               5           The risk of regional system differences
                           ([R.sub.31])
               6           The public against risks ([R.sub.32])
               7           Typhoon risk ([R.sub.41])
               8           Earthquake risk ([R.sub.42])
               9           Chloride salt corrosion risk ([R.sub.43])
               10          Schedule control risk ([R.sub.51])
               11          Quality management risk ([R.sub.52])
               12          Safety management risk ([R.sub.53])
               13          Legal conflict or blind area risk
                           ([R.sub.61])

Stage          Sequence    Average       Average    Average
                           value  of     value of   value of
                           probability   object     subject
                                         severity   feeling

Initial        1           2.17          3.65       3.42
construction   2           2.52          3.48       3.07
stage          3           2.08          4.16       3.66
               4           3.21          3.23       2.77
               5           2.78          2.35       2.47

               6           1.56          3.72       3.98
               7           3.45          4.03       3.86
               8           1.06          4.75       4.67
               9           2.72          3.25       3.09
               10          2.91          2.76       2.92
               11          1.85          4.49       4.33
               12          2.04          4.16       4.08
               13          2.11          3.53       3.16

Table 9: Single risk factor parameter and coefficient of the HZMB in
initial construction stage.

Stages         Sequence                    Risk factor

Initial           1        Risk of being poorly designed ([R.sub.11])
construction      2               Innovation risk ([R.sub.12])
stage             3           Risk of nontimely funding([R.sub.21])
                  4           The risk of rising costs ([R.sub.22])
                  5         The risk of regional system differences
                                          ([R.sub.31])
                  6           The public against risks ([R.sub.32])
                  7                 Typhoon risk ([R.sub.41])
                  8               Earthquake risk ([R.sub.42])
                  9         Chloride salt corrosion risk ([R.sub.43])
                  10           Schedule control risk ([R.sub.51])
                  11          Quality management risk ([R.sub.52])
                  12           Safety management risk ([R.sub.53])
                  13           Legal conflict or blind area risk
                                          ([R.sub.61])

Stages         Sequence   Probability   Objective
                          coefficient    severity
                                        coefficient

Initial           1          0.43          0.73
construction      2          0.50          0.70
stage             3          0.42          0.83
                  4          0.64          0.65
                  5          0.56          0.47

                  6          0.31          0.74
                  7          0.69          0.81
                  8          0.21          0.95
                  9          0.54          0.65
                  10         0.58          0.55
                  11         0.37          0.90
                  12         0.41          0.83
                  13         0.42          0.71

Stages         Sequence   Subjective     Single risk
                            feeling        factor
                          coefficient     parameter

Initial           1           1.14          0.36
construction      2           1.02          0.36
stage             3           1.22          0.43
                  4           0.92          0.38
                  5           0.82          0.22

                  6           1.33          0.31
                  7           1.29          0.72
                  8           1.56          0.31
                  9           1.03          0.36
                  10          0.97          0.31
                  11          1.44          0.48
                  12          1.36          0.46
                  13          1.05          0.31

Table 10: The classification and portfolio risk index of the HZMB in
initial construction stage.

                          Secondary index
Primary
index             Risk name      Index    Weight

Portfolio      Technical risk    0.36     0.212
risk index
of the
HZMB in         Economic risk    0.41     0.137
initial
construction     Social risk     0.27     0.162
stage
PRI = 0.38
                 Nature risk     0.48     0.116

               Management risk   0.44     0.265

                 Legal risk      0.31     0.108

                                    Third-grade index
Primary
index                        Risk name                  Index   Weight

Portfolio          Risk of being poorly designed        0.36    0.667
risk index                  ([R.sub.11])
of the              Innovation risk ([R.sub.12])        0.36    0.333
HZMB in        Risk of nontimely funding ([R.sub.21)    0.43    0.667
initial        The risk of rising costs ([R.sub.22])    0.38    0.333
construction       The risk of regional system          0.22     0.50
stage                 differences ([R.sub.31])
PRI = 0.38     The public against risks ([R.sub.32])    0.31     0.50
                     Typhoon risk ([R.sub.41])          0.72    0.387
                    Earthquake risk ([R.sub.42])        0.31    0.412
                   Chloride salt corrosion risk         0.36    0.201
                            ([R.sub.43])
                 Schedule control risk ([R.sub.51])     0.31    0.227
                Quality management risk ([R.sub.52])    0.48    0.538
                Safety management risk ([R.sub.53])     0.46    0.235
                 Legal conflict or blind area risk      0.31     1.00
                            ([R.sub.61])

Table 11: Classification and portfolio risk index of the
HZMB in medium-term construction stage.

Primary        Secondary index
index
               Risk name             Index   Weight

Portfolio      Technical risk        0.17    0.212
risk index
of the
HZMB in        Economic risk         0.30    0.137
medium-
term
construction   Social risk           0.15    0.162
stage
PRI = 0.15

               Nature risk           0.32    0.116

               Management risk       0.20    0.265

               Legal risk            0.18    0.108

Primary        Third-grade index
index
               Risk name                              Index   Weight

Portfolio      Risk of being poorly                   0.18    0.667
risk index     designed ([R.sub.11])
of the         Innovation risk ([R.sub.12])           0.14    0.333
HZMB in        Risk of nontimely funding              0.28    0.667
medium-        ([R.sub.21])
term           The risk of rising costs ([R.sub.22])  0.35    0.333
construction   The risk of regional system            0.12    0.50
stage          differences ([R.sub.31])
PRI = 0.15     The public against risks               0.18    0.50
               ([R.sub.32])
               Typhoon risk ([R.sub.41])              0.48    0.387
               Earthquake risk ([R.sub.42])           0.25    0.412
               Chloride salt corrosion                0.14    0.201
               risk ([R.sub.43])
               Schedule control risk ([R.sub.51])     0.29    0.227
               Quality management risk                0.18    0.538
               ([R.sub.52])
               Safety management risk                 0.16    0.235
               ([R.sub.53])
               Legal conflict or blind area risk      0.18    1.00
               ([R.sub.61])

Table 12: The portfolio balanced risk comparison of the HZMB in
initial and medium-term construction stage.

T                             PR

       Technical    Economic      Social       Nature
       risk index   risk index   risk index   risk index

2010      0.36         0.41         0.27         0.48
2012      0.17         0.30         0.15         0.32

T                           PR

       Management risk   Law risk   Portfolio
            index         index     risk index

2010        0.44           0.31        0.38
2012        0.20           0.18        0.15

Table 13: Early warning level of project risk index.

Portfolio        Qualitative description of the project risk
balanced risk    severity
index

Above 0.40       The risk is very serious and the overall
                 value may result in significant loss

[0.30,0.40]      The risk is comparatively serious and the
                 overall value may result in great loss

[0.20,0.30]      The risk is generally serious and the
                 overall value may result in great loss

[0.10,0.20]      The risk is comparatively mild and the
                 chance that the overall value deviating from
                 the expected goal is minimal
Below 0.1        The risk is comparatively mild and the
                 chance of the overall value deviating
                 from the expected goal is very minimal

Portfolio        Early warning level and coping strategy
balanced risk
index

Above 0.40       Red warning interval, first-grade
                 powerful measures are taken to control
                 and resolve risk
[0.30,0.40]      Orange warning interval, secondary
                 measures are taken to control and resolve
                 risk
[0.20,0.30]      Yellow warning interval, three-grade
                 measures are taken to control and resolve
                 risks
[0.10,0.20]      A relatively safe interval, analyze the
                 cause of risks and verify risk control
                 measures
Below 0.1        Safe interval, analyze the cause of risks
COPYRIGHT 2017 Hindawi Limited
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Research Article
Author:Gao, Wu; Hong, Kairong
Publication:Complexity
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:0PACI
Date:Jan 1, 2017
Words:8801
Previous Article:Modeling and Error Compensation of Robotic Articulated Arm Coordinate Measuring Machines Using BP Neural Network.
Next Article:Stabilization and Synchronization of Memristive Chaotic Circuits by Impulsive Control.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters