IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i10p3951-d1390880.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Study on the Dynamic Evolution Paths of Social Risks in PPP Projects of Water Environmental Governance—From the Vulnerability Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Xu Chen

    (Business School, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China
    Institute of Project Management, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China)

  • Ying Zhao

    (Business School, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China)

  • Song Xue

    (Business School, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China
    Institute of Project Management, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China)

Abstract

The Chinese economy is transitioning from high-speed development to high-quality development, and water environmental governance is a key factor promoting economic transformation. Due to low returns and high investment in China’s water environmental governance, the PPP (public–private-partnership) model is often adopted. However, the PPP model has historically faced challenges adapting to local conditions in China, leading to social risks in the PPP projects of water environmental governance. To reduce these risks, this paper takes a vulnerability perspective, employing the system dynamics simulation method to explore the dynamic evolution process of social risks in the PPP projects of water environmental governance. The main results show the following: (1) the external manifestations of social risks during the construction and operation periods vary significantly, exhibiting notable fluctuations; (2) during the construction period, there is a surge in social risks followed by a returns to lower than normal levels, then a gradual upward trend; during the operation period, social risks initially decrease to a lower level before gradually increasing; and (3) city class, relevant legal systems, and resource reserves emerge as critical factors influencing vulnerability and social risks. The higher the city class, the lower the project vulnerability; the soundness of the legal system for PPP projects can effectively reduce vulnerability and social risks; sufficient resource reserves can reduce social risks. Based on the above findings, this paper proposes several suggestions aiming to reduce the vulnerability and social risks in PPP projects, optimize the process of water environmental governance, and further promote the sustainable development of water environmental governance and the high-quality economy of China.

Suggested Citation

  • Xu Chen & Ying Zhao & Song Xue, 2024. "A Study on the Dynamic Evolution Paths of Social Risks in PPP Projects of Water Environmental Governance—From the Vulnerability Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-22, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:10:p:3951-:d:1390880
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/10/3951/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/10/3951/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lane, David C., 1999. "Social theory and system dynamics practice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(3), pages 501-527, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Oliva, Rogelio, 2003. "Model calibration as a testing strategy for system dynamics models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(3), pages 552-568, December.
    2. Elias Hartvigsson & Erik Oscar Ahlgren & Sverker Molander, 2020. "Tackling complexity and problem formulation in rural electrification through conceptual modelling in system dynamics," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 141-153, January.
    3. Etienne Rouwette & Ingrid Bastings & Hans Blokker, 2011. "A Comparison of Group Model Building and Strategic Options Development and Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 781-803, November.
    4. Erika Palmer, 2018. "The Heavy Cost of Care: Systemic Challenges in Norwegian Work Absenteeism," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-17, June.
    5. Natalia Brzezina & Birgit Kopainsky & Erik Mathijs, 2016. "Can Organic Farming Reduce Vulnerabilities and Enhance the Resilience of the European Food System? A Critical Assessment Using System Dynamics Structural Thinking Tools," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-32, September.
    6. Ghaffarzadegan, Navid & Xue, Yi & Larson, Richard C., 2017. "Work-education mismatch: An endogenous theory of professionalization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 261(3), pages 1085-1097.
    7. David C. Lane, 2022. "Fons et origo: reflections on the 60th anniversary of Industrial Dynamics," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 38(3), pages 292-324, July.
    8. David C. Lane, 2012. "What Is a ‘Policy Insight’?," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 590-595, November.
    9. S Robinson, 2005. "Discrete-event simulation: from the pioneers to the present, what next?," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(6), pages 619-629, June.
    10. Cunico, Giovanni & Aivazidou, Eirini & Mollona, Edoardo, 2021. "Building a dynamic theory of citizens’ awareness of European Cohesion Policy interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(2), pages 758-773.
    11. David C. Lane & Birgit Kopainsky & David C. Lane, 2017. "‘Behavioural System Dynamics’: A Very Tentative and Slightly Sceptical Map of the Territory," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(4), pages 414-423, July.
    12. Boelsen-Robinson, Tara & Blake, Miranda R. & Brown, Andrew D. & Huse, Oliver & Palermo, Claire & George, Neetu A. & Peeters, Anna, 2021. "Mapping factors associated with a successful shift towards healthier food retail in community-based organisations: A systems approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    13. Gábor Király & Alexandra Köves & György Pataki & Gabriella Kiss, 2016. "Assessing the Participatory Potential of Systems Mapping," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(4), pages 496-514, July.
    14. H van de Water & M Schinkel & R Rozier, 2007. "Fields of application of SSM: a categorization of publications," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(3), pages 271-287, March.
    15. Benjamin L. Turner & Vincent Tidwell & Alexander Fernald & José A. Rivera & Sylvia Rodriguez & Steven Guldan & Carlos Ochoa & Brian Hurd & Kenneth Boykin & Andres Cibils, 2016. "Modeling Acequia Irrigation Systems Using System Dynamics: Model Development, Evaluation, and Sensitivity Analyses to Investigate Effects of Socio-Economic and Biophysical Feedbacks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-30, October.
    16. J Mingers, 2003. "A classification of the philosophical assumptions of management science methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(6), pages 559-570, June.
    17. Michael C. Jackson, 2020. "Critical systems practice 1: Explore—Starting a multimethodological intervention," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(5), pages 839-858, September.
    18. David C. Lane & Özge Pala & Yaman Barlas & David C. Lane, 2015. "Validity is a Matter of Confidence—But Not Just in System Dynamics," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(4), pages 450-458, July.
    19. Leopold-Wildburger, Ulrike & Strohhecker, Jürgen, 2017. "Strategy map concepts in a balanced scorecard cockpit improve performanceAuthor-Name: Hu, Bo," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(2), pages 664-676.
    20. Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2014. "The non-codified use of problem structuring methods and the need for a generic constitutive definition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(3), pages 932-945.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:10:p:3951-:d:1390880. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.