The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm

BIJ
26,2 Identification of critical risk
factors in public-private
partnership project phases in
334 developing countries
Received 12 January 2017
Revised 26 June 2017 A case of Nigeria
Accepted 5 June 2018
Solomon Olusola Babatunde
Department of Quantity Surveying, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
Srinath Perera
School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics,
University of Western Sydney, South Penrith, Australia, and
Onaopepo Adeniyi
Architecture and Built Environment Department, Northumbria University,
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Abstract
Purpose – Public‐private partnerships (PPPs) are being faced by risk threats, notwithstanding the fact that
the PPP model has been structured in a way that the associated risks are shared by both the public and
private sectors. Consequently, the sources of risk change over the PPP project phases. Thus, the purpose of
this paper is to identify and assess the risk factors in PPP infrastructure project phases comprising
development phase, construction phase, operation phase and project life cycle through an empirical approach.
Design/methodology/approach – The study adopted four different data-gathering approaches including
literature review, desk review, brainstorming session and questionnaire survey. In order to capture a broad
perception of stakeholders, the questionnaires were administered to three different stakeholder organizations
to include public sector authorities (i.e. ministries, department and agencies), concessionaires and lenders/
banks involved in different PPP infrastructure projects implementation in Nigeria. A total of 81
questionnaires were administered, out of which 63 were retrieved but after checking through the completed
questionnaires, 60 questionnaires were found suitable for the analysis. Data collected were analyzed using
descriptive statistics, mean score, Kruskal–Wallis test and the risk significance index in terms of severity and
likelihood of occurrence conducted.
Findings – In total, 70 risk factors were identified with respect to PPP project phases and their relative
importance was gauged. In addition, the analysis of total 70 risk factors in the development phase,
construction phase, operation phase and project life cycle phase indicated that 51 risk factors are located in
the yellow zone, which is considered as moderate and 19 risk factors are located in the red zone that are
regarded as critical.
Practical implications – The identification of specific critical risk factors in each PPP project phase will
provide a benchmark in developing risk management programs in developing countries.
Originality/value – These study findings would be useful for PPP stakeholders to focus their attention,
priorities and leadership in managing these critical risk factors. Furthermore, the findings of this study are
significant in providing an in-depth understanding of the current Nigeria’s PPP market environment, which is
a true reflection of developing countries as a whole.
Keywords PPPs, Developing countries
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Benchmarking: An International
Journal It is evident that poor outcomes occur in infrastructure projects delivery due to
Vol. 26 No. 2, 2019
pp. 334-355
inappropriate allocation of risks among the parties involved (Flyvbjerg, Bruzelius and
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-5771
Rothengatter, 2003; Flyvbjerg, Holm and Buhl, 2003). It is on this premise that Flyvbjerg
DOI 10.1108/BIJ-01-2017-0008 (2007) recommended public–private partnership (PPP) model for large infrastructure
projects delivery, based on the fact that PPPs allocate risks to private investors willing to Critical risk
take on such risks in exchange for a long-term contractual agreement to be responsible for factors in PPP
design, finance, construction, operations and maintenance. This is affirmed by Wibowo and project phases
Mohamed (2008) that PPP concept is the transfer of risks traditionally borne by the
government to the private sector. The problem now lies in the identification, allocation and
management of the risks which are dependent on the type of project, the procurement route
and the contractual arrangement that are put in place (Leiringer, 2003). This is supported by 335
Chou and Pramudawardhani (2015) that many PPP projects failure resulted from
inappropriate risk allocation. However, the proper identification and allocation of risks are
key to successful PPP project implementation. OECD (2008) reported that achieving value
for money in PPP project depends on the ability of the major participant to adequately
identify, analyze and allocate risks appropriately. This is corroborated by Thomas et al.
(2006) that the success recorded in PPP projects, particularly BOT projects, is due to proper
risks identification, assessment and allocation.
Therefore, a sound risk management strategy that involves the identification and
allocation of risks to the best parties that can manage it becomes imperative (OECD, 2008).
Corner (2006) asserted that to best manage risk means to manage it at the least cost and
thereby reduce the long-term cost of projects. It is therefore implied that risk is a factor that
is responsible for the high cost of infrastructure projects if the risks are not properly
identified and managed. Unfortunately, PPP projects are susceptible to risks emanating
from the complex nature of PPPs itself that involve various participants with diverse
interests, market conditions, a huge amount of investments and long concession periods
(Grimsey and Lewis, 2002; Thomas et al., 2006; Gupta et al., 2013). It is on this premise that
Abednego and Ogunlana (2006) advocated for good project governance systems for proper
risk allocation in PPP projects. It is evident that PPP projects are prone to some inherent
risks that demand utmost management by both the public and private actors to guarantee
success in present and future PPP projects implementation. Therefore, successful PPPs
should be designed with careful attention to the context within which the partnerships will
be implemented. Thus, it is important for all stakeholders in PPPs to have an in-depth
understanding of PPPs environment with a view to responding actively to these risks,
especially in most developing countries, where PPPs are still at infancy stage.
Thomas et al. (2006) asserted that the success of PPP projects is greatly influenced by the
degree to which various project risks are identified, assessed and allocated. Thus,
the identification of risk factors has been viewed as the first important step toward the
management of risks. This triggered the research community in identifying and classifying
risk factors in construction projects. For instance, many researchers have tried to identify
risks in construction works affecting developing countries (see Raftery, 1994; Ramcharran,
1998; Li et al., 1999; Abdul-Aziz, 2001; Wang et al., 2004). In PPP projects, Ng and Loosemore
(2007) stated that some risks affect PPP expected outcomes and classified the risks as
general risks and project risks. Merna and Smith (1996) classified the risks in PPP projects
into two broad categories: global and elemental risk. Elbing and Devapriya (2004) classified
PPP risks as global (independent of a project) risks and project risks. Li et al. (2005)
employed a meta-classification approach based on three levels of risk factors; this includes
macro, meso and micro levels of risks. Ibrahim et al. (2006) identified 61 risk factors in PPPs
and classified it into exogenous and endogenous risks. Carbonara et al. (2015) provided the
guidelines in defining a list of significant risks in PPP motorway projects. Ameyaw and
Chan (2016) established risk-allocation criteria and examined the allocation of five key risk
factors related to PPPs in water supply infrastructure projects in developing countries using
the fuzzy-set approach. Chen et al. (2017) identified six financing risk levels comprising
political risks, social risks, financial risks, construction risks and operational risks, which
were used to develop a financing risk assessment model. In spite of these previous studies,
BIJ very few attempted to identify and classify critical risk factors based on PPP project phases
26,2 comprising development phase, construction phase, operation phase and project life cycle
through an empirical approach.
Existing significant studies on PPPs in Nigeria (see Ibrahim et al., 2006; Awodele, 2012;
Babatunde et al., 2012, 2015; Babatunde, Perera and Zhou, 2016; Babatunde, Perera, Zhou and
Udeaja, 2016) focused on its critical success factors, barriers, capability maturity levels, as well
336 as on its performance indicators. Few of these studies that examined risk factors associated
with PPP projects in Nigeria (e.g. Ibrahim et al., 2006; Awodele, 2012) paid scant attention to the
critical risk factors in different phases of PPP projects including development phase,
construction phase, operation phase and project life cycle. Also, Ibrahim et al. (2006) and
Awodele (2012) paid little attention to discuss the phenomenon from primary stakeholders’
perspectives. Considering the sources of risk change over the PPP project phases and
examining this phenomenon from primary stakeholders’ perspective will provide a richer and
more practical knowledge of risk factors associated with PPP infrastructure projects
implementation. This study aims to fill this gap. It is in pursuance of this that three different
stakeholder organizations already involved in PPP infrastructure projects implementation
including public sector authorities, concessionaires and lenders/banks are considered as
respondents in this study. Furthermore, this study sought to answer a pertinent question: “how
can critical risk factors which are peculiar in different phases of PPP infrastructure projects be
identified?” In this respect, this study was guided by the following derived objectives:
• identify and assess various risk factors associated with PPP infrastructure project
phase including development phase, construction phase, operation phase and project
life cycle phase; and
• assess the criticality of risk factors and thereby determine the critical risk factors for
each of PPP project phase.
It is believed that this study would enhance the understanding of both the potential and
current PPP stakeholders on the critical risk factors that demand utmost attention in each
PPP infrastructure project phase. In addition, this study would further be useful for PPP
stakeholders in the development of risk management programs toward achieving value
for money in PPP infrastructure projects, most especially in Nigeria and developing
countries at large.

Literature review
PPPs in Nigeria
In Nigeria, there has been a rise in the number of PPP-driven infrastructure projects over the
last 20 years. For example, between 1990 and 2009 over 51 infrastructure projects
were executed through PPPs (Vetiva, 2011). In 2013 and 2014, about 66 PPP projects were in
the pipeline (Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC), 2014). In terms of
actual value, annual investments rise to $3.1bn from $22.0m in 1997, adding up to $23.6bn
from 1990 to 2009. Based on the actual value, investment in the telecoms sector was the
highest, totaling $18.4bn and accounting for 78 percent of the total investments within the
period (Vetiva, 2011). The Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) first passed the ICRC Act in
2005 in an effort to create an independent body to manage and develop PPP transactions;
the ICRC was officially inaugurated in November 2008 (ICRC, 2012). Thereafter, FGN
approved comprehensive National Policy on PPPs in 2009 (World Bank, 2011; ICRC, 2012).
The policy addresses the roles and responsibilities of the ICRC as well as the other key
ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) involved in PPPs. The policy also outlines a
clear process by which proposed PPP transactions are examined upstream to determine
their commercial viability. After the creation of the national policy on PPPs, the ICRC has
embarked on drafting detailed PPP regulations that expand on the provision set forth in the Critical risk
policy, and to address missing information such as institutional arrangements between factors in PPP
MDAs and PPP procurement procedures (World Bank, 2011). project phases
The ICRC is responsible for developing and issuing guidelines on PPP policies, processes
and procedures and acts as a national center of expertise in PPP. The ICRC (2012) monitors
the effectiveness of the FGN’s policies and processes and provides independent advice to the
Federal Executive Council on the development of projects through the PPP route. The ICRC 337
works closely with state governments that are developing their own PPP policies to ensure
consistency, best practice and a coordinated approach to the private sector supplier market.
Consequently, the ICRC maintains a PPP project database and also retains custody of all
PPP agreements as required by legislation. Having created an enabling environment for
PPPs in Nigeria, many infrastructure projects such as airports, seaports, roads, rails, power
and energy, markets complex development, university hostel development, affordable
housing and offices among others have been executed through PPPs.

Selected literature on risk identification and classification in PPPs

It is increasingly evident that risk is inherent in all PPP projects as in any other
infrastructure projects. A striking characteristic of the PPPs is its high level of risks, due to
the long concession period, and the diversity of participants involved in the partnership
(Kwak et al., 2009). Thus, risk identification is a process for uncovering any risks that could
potentially affect a process. This step is of considerable importance as other processes in
risk management such as risk analysis and response. Given this, prior researchers have
directed their attention to the identification and classification of risks associated with PPP
projects (see Merna and Smith, 1996; Akintoye et al., 1998; Arndt and Maguire, 1999;
Li, 2003; Dixon et al., 2005; Li et al., 2005; Xenidis and Angelides, 2005; Ibrahim et al., 2006;
Roumboutsos and Anagnostopoulos, 2008; Wibowo and Mohamed, 2008; Xu et al., 2011;
Ameyaw and Chan, 2013, 2016; Pellegrino et al., 2013; Carbonara et al., 2015; Chen et al.,
2017) among others. Therefore, review of these significant related literature revealed a total
of 70 risk factors related to PPP projects in general. The classification of risk factors into
five broad categories in different phases of delivery of PPP infrastructure projects by
Carbonara et al. (2015) was adapted in this study. These comprised development phase,
construction phase, operation phase, project life cycle and transfer phase. Furthermore, in
Nigeria there is no PPP project that has reached transfer phase; thus, transfer phase was
excluded in this study. Therefore, a list of the risk factors in PPP projects identified from the
selected literature is presented in Figure 1.

Research methodology
Earlier researchers have emphasized the philosophical underpinnings of the research
process (see Thurairajah et al., 2006; Dainty, 2007; Badu et al., 2012). For example,
McCallin (2003) asserted that a philosophical position should be reviewed and considered in
the direction of inquiry. Thus, the philosophical concepts underlying this study emanated
from positivism. For instance, positivism is employed because it is a scientific framework
that aims to generate empirical evidence that is objective and testable (Finlay, 2006).
Furthermore, Flick (2006) claimed that positivism seeks for an objective “truth,” which is
seen to exist independently of the individual’s perceptions of it. Saunders et al. (2012)
asserted that positivism is associated with quantitative research. This study, therefore,
employed the positivism paradigm where the knowledge of risk factors in PPP
infrastructure projects is substantiated through cumulative of established facts and
analyzed in a manner that facilitates replication. In addition, the appropriate selection of
research strategy is guided by the nature of the study. Thus, the research strategies
employed for this study include three different data-gathering approaches including
BIJ
26,2
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PHASE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OPERATION PHASE

1 Land acquisition/site availability 1 Availability of finance 1 Inability to service debt

338 2 Creditworthiness of the other project
sponsors
3 Inadequate negotiation period prior to
initiation
4 Uncompetitive tender process
5 Fault in tender specification
6 Delay in financial closure
7 High bidding costs
8 Lack of government guarantees
9 Delay in project approvals and permits
10 Financial attraction of project to investors
11 Resettlement and rehabilitation
12 Design deficiency
2 High finance cost
3 Improper quality control
4 Construction cost overrun
5 Unproven engineering techniques
6 Construction time delay
7 Material/labour availability
8 Third-party tort liability
9 Insolvency/default of subcontractors
and suppliers
10 Excessive contract variation
11 Poor quality of workmanship
12 Late design changes
13 Manpower problem associated with
trade unions
14 Geotechnical conditions
15 Change of scope
16 Contractor failure
17 Health and safety onsite
2 Operating cost overrun
3 Delays or interruption in
operation
4 Failure to meet service quality
5 Operator default
6 Changes in taxes/tariffs
7 Rate of return restrictions
8 Life of facility shorter than
anticipated
9 Competitive market (a product
with close substitute)
10 Market demand/usage risk
11 Maintenance cost higher than
expected
12 Maintenance more frequent
than expected
13 Low operating productivity
14 Operational revenues below
projection/expectation

PROJECT LIFE CYCLE (i.e. Throughout Project Cycle)

1 Corruption and lack of 10 Influential economic event 20 Government influence on

respect for law (boom/recession) disputes
2 Unstable government 11 Legislation change/ 21 Industrial regulatory change
3 Possible expropriation/ inconsistencies 22 Bankruptcy
nationalisation of assets 12 Import/export restrictions 23 Inadequate experience in PPP
4 Inconsistencies in 13 Public opposition to projects 24 Lack of commitment from
government policies 14 Non-involvement of public/private partner
5 Political opposition/ host-community 25 Inadequate distribution of
hostility 15 Cultural differences between authority between partners
6 Poor financial market main stakeholders 26 Different working methods/or
7 Inflation rate 16 Force majeure know-how between partners
volatility 17 Environment 27 Staff crises
18 Political interference
Figure 1. 8 Interest rate volatility
19 Financiers unwilling to take
9 Exchange rate fluctuation
Risk factors in PPP high risk
project phase
Source: Adapted from Carbonara et al. (2015)

literature review, desk review and brainstorming session and questionnaire survey. This is
corroborated by Bryman (2006) that research methods are of different approaches, but
advocated for a combination of approaches with a view to providing a more robust research
outcome. Therefore, it is evident that in order to gain complete understanding of a given
construction management research phenomenon, different approaches which typically
comprised a blend of methods that are very different from each other should be used
(Love et al., 2002; Yin, 2009; Saunders et al., 2012). It is against this backdrop that this study
adopted four data-gathering approaches, which are briefly discussed as follows.

Review
A literature review was carried out to identify risk factors related to PPP projects.
These were identified from significant literature (see Akintoye et al., 1998; Li et al., 2005;
Ibrahim et al., 2006; Pellegrino et al., 2013; Carbonara et al., 2015) among others. The outcome
of literature review produced a total of 70 risk factors (see Figure 1), which form the basis of
inquiry for the data collection and analysis.
Desk review Critical risk
The outcome of literature review was subjected to desk review which comprised three factors in PPP
researchers and academia in the built environment that have “hands-on” experience of PPP project phases
projects implementation with a view to classifying and fine-tuning the identified 70 risk
factors into the PPP project phases as adapted from Carbonara et al. (2015), which
comprised development phase, construction phase, operation phase and project life cycle,
i.e. risks occurring in more than one of the phases (see Figure 1 for details). 339
Brainstorming session
The outcome of the desk review was subjected to external brainstorming which comprised
five PPP experts who were purposively selected. This approach was similar to Babatunde
(2015) and Babatunde, Perera and Zhou (2016) when developing capability maturity levels
for PPP stakeholders’ organizations. The selected five PPP experts comprised senior
managers and chief executives in both the public and private sectors, which their
organizations have involved in various types of PPP infrastructure projects implementation
in Nigeria for the final checking and ratification of the already identified and classified risk
factors in each PPP project phase. The five PPP experts gave their feedback, which was
used to revise the identified risk factors in each PPP project phase. These resulted into
12, 17, 14 and 27 identified risk factors, respectively, in the development phase, construction
phase, operation phase and project life cycle phase (see Figure 1 for details). These were
used to design the questionnaire survey.

Questionnaire survey
The study adopted questionnaire survey with a view to capturing a broad perception of
stakeholders on risk factors associated with PPP infrastructure projects implementation in
Nigeria. This is corroborated by Cheung (2009) that in quantitative research, the
questionnaire survey is identified as an effective method to seek a large sample size for
quantitative data analysis. It is affirmed by Xu et al. (2011) that questionnaire survey is one
of the most commonly adopted techniques. Therefore, questionnaire survey was widely
employed by a number of reputable earlier researchers in PPP studies (see Li et al., 2005;
Ibrahim et al., 2006; Roumboutsos and Anagnostopoulos, 2008; Cheung, 2009; Ke et al., 2010;
Osei-Kyei and Chan, 2017; Osei-Kyei et al., 2017). The target population for this study is PPP
primary stakeholders comprising the public sector authorities (i.e. ministries, department
and agencies), concessionaires and local lenders in Lagos metropolis, Nigeria, Unfortunately,
there is no official list stipulating the number of stakeholders that have been involved in
PPP projects in Nigeria. This is supported by Li et al. (2005) that the number of
organizations involved in PPP/PFI projects is evolving and growing. Thus, the research
population in PPP studies cannot be readily determined. It is on this premise that the lists of
primary stakeholder organizations who have been involved in the execution of different
types of PPP infrastructure projects in Lagos metropolis, Nigeria, which were generated
through a rigorous compilation by Babatunde (2015) when developing PPP strategy for
infrastructure delivery in Nigeria were adapted in this study.
The rationale for choosing Lagos metropolis as a study area was identified by
Babatunde (2015) including accessibility to conduct the survey to obtain required data,
availability of substantive PPP experts and appropriateness of the PPP infrastructure
projects for the analysis.
Hence, the stakeholder organizations (i.e. target population) for this study that comprised
public sector authorities (i.e. ministries, department and agencies), concessionaires and
banks were extracted from the total lists generated by Babatunde (2015) comprising
31 public sector authorities, 28 concessionaires and 22 lenders/banks, thus, resulting into
81 primary stakeholder organizations (i.e. target population) for this study. Therefore, a
BIJ total of 81 questionnaires were administered, out of which 63 were retrieved but after
26,2 checking through the completed questionnaires, 60 questionnaires were found suitable for
the analysis.
The questionnaire designed for the study was structured and multiple-choice type.
The questionnaire was divided into two sections. Section “A” comprised the background
information of the respondents, this includes the category of respondent organization,
340 academic qualification, years of industrial/professional experience and types and
number of PPP projects undertaken by the respondent organization. Section “B” was
designed in relating to the purpose of the study. Also, a Likert scale was used when
designed the questionnaire. This approach of using the Likert scale is common in both
general construction management research and in PPP studies. For instance, in PPP
studies, a number of earlier researchers adopted a five-point Likert scale (see Li, 2003;
Li et al., 2005; Chan et al., 2010; Liyanage and Villalba-Romero, 2015). Several researchers
used a seven-point Likert scale (see Wang et al., 2004; Ameyaw and Chan, 2015).
Furthermore, very few researchers employed a ten-point Likert scale (see Murphy et al.,
2011; Babatunde, 2015). In order to capture a broad range of views/answers from the
respondents, this study adopted a ten-point Likert scale. Thus, the questions were asked
on a ten-point Likert scale rating with 10 being the highest of the rating, and it is
illustrated in Table I.
Furthermore, a reliability test using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
was conducted on the questionnaire. The result indicated that the reliability coefficient
value of Cronbach’s α 0.875 signified that the questionnaire used was significantly reliable
and showed the evidence of internal consistency (George and Mallery, 2003). The data
obtained were analyzed using the SPSS. Therefore, this study used both descriptive and
inferential statistics for the analysis. The descriptive statistics techniques used include
percentage, average, standard deviation (SD) and mean score. The inferential statistics
particularly Kruskal–Wallis test was conducted. For example, Kruskal and Wallis (1952)
described Kruskal–Wallis test as a non-parametric alternative test for the one-way analysis
of variance. Zikmund (2003) asserted that Kruskal–Wallis test is an appropriate statistical
technique when a researcher wishes to compare three or more groups or population, and the
data are ordinal. This is corroborated by Field and Miles (2012) and Field (2013) that
Kruskal–Wallis test is based on ranked data and it is conducted when there are three or
more samples. It is against this backdrop that Kruskal–Wallis test was undertaken in this
study to determine whether there is statistically significant difference in the perception of
the three stakeholder groups comprising public sector authorities, concessionaires and
lenders/banks in the ranking of the various risk factors associated with PPP infrastructure
project phase including development phase, construction phase, operation phase and project
life cycle phase (see Table III for detail).

Rating Likelihood of occurrence Severity

1 Negligible Negligible impact

2 Remote Very minor impact
3 Very low Minor impact
4 Low Very low impact
5 Moderately low Low impact
Table I. 6 Moderate Moderate impact
Rating system for 7 Moderately high High impact
the likelihood of 8 High Very high impact
occurrence/probability 9 Almost very high Almost critical impact
and severity 10 Very high Critical impact
Results and discussion Critical risk
Background information of respondents factors in PPP
Table II indicated the background information of respondents in terms of organization project phases
category, academic qualifications, years of industrial experience and the number of PPP
projects undertaken by respondents. The organization category of respondent includes the
public sector authorities, concessionaires and lenders/banks. It can be seen from Table II
that 20 of the respondents representing 33.3 percent are public sector authorities; 25 of the 341
respondents representing 41.7 percent are concessionaires; and 15 of the respondents
representing 25 percent are lenders/banks (see Table II for details). In addition, the
respondents’ organizations involvement in PPPs infrastructure project indicated that
27 organizations representing 45.0 percent involved in over 5 PPP infrastructure projects,
followed by 12 respondents’ organizations representing 20.0 percent involved in 5 PPP
infrastructure projects, while 3 respondents’ organizations representing 5.0 percent involved
in 1 PPP infrastructure project. This showed that the respondents have adequate knowledge
and experience in PPP infrastructure projects in Nigeria. Thus, the information supplied on
PPP infrastructure projects by these respondents’ organizations is adjudged to be reliable.
Figure 2 showed the types of PPP infrastructure projects that the respondents’
organizations have undertaken. It reveals that vast majority of the respondent organizations
had involved in more than one type of PPP infrastructure projects. The most common PPP
infrastructure projects that the respondents have participated include housing and office
with 73.3 percent, followed by market complex (i.e. shopping mall) with 50.0 percent, roads
with 31.7 percent, university hostel with 26.7 percent, power and energy with 26.7 percent

Respondents profile Frequency Percentage

Organization category
Public sector authorities 20 33.33
Concessionaire 25 41.67
Lender/bank 15 25.00
Total 60 100.00
Academic qualification
HND 11 18.33
BSc 26 43.34
MSc 21 35.00
PhD 2 3.33
Total 60 100.00
Industrial experience (years)
1–5 9 15.00
6–10 26 43.34
11–15 8 13.33
16–20 5 8.33
Above 21 12 20.00
Total 60 100.00
Number of PPP project executed
1 3 5.00
2 6 10.00
3 6 10.00
4 6 10.00 Table II.
5 12 20.00 Demographic
Above 5 27 45.00 information of
Total 60 100.00 respondents
BIJ and airport with 20.0 percent (see Figure 2 for details). It can be deduced from Figure 2 that
26,2 the respondents have engaged in a series of PPP infrastructure projects that comprised both
the economic and social infrastructure. Given this, the respondents are adjudged of having
knowledge of PPPs. Therefore, the authors of this study are convinced that the respondents
possessed the adequate experience to supply reliable data for this study.

342 Ranking of risk factors in PPP project phase

Table III indicated the detail perception of the three stakeholder groups on the likelihood of
occurrence of risk factors in PPP infrastructure projects in Nigeria, based on a ten-point
Likert rating scale. Given two or more identified risk factors (see Table III) with the same
mean, the one with the lowest SD was assigned highest importance ranking (Field, 2005).
Thus, the identified 70 risk factors were grouped into four phases of PPP projects
comprising development phase with 12 identified risk factors, construction phase with
17 identified risk factors, operation phase with 14 identified risk factors and project life cycle
with 27 identified risk factors (see Figure 1 for details). In Nigeria, there is no PPP project
that has reached transfer phase; thus, transfer phase was excluded in this study. The results
of the analysis in each PPP project phase are presented as follows.
Development phase. Table III showed the analysis of the ranking in terms of the total
mean score values for the 12 identified risk factors at the development phase ranging from
6.98 to 8.64, based on a ten-point Likert rating scale. This indicated that all the identified risk
factors are considered by the respondents as important risk factors influencing PPP
infrastructure projects at development phase in Nigeria. Furthermore, as shown in Table III,
the most top 5 ranked risk factors with very high likelihood of occurrence at development
phase are: land acquisition/site availability, creditworthiness of the other project sponsors,
delay in project approvals and permits, financial attraction of project to investors and
resettlement and rehabilitation with their total mean score values of 8.64, 8.21, 8.13, 7.97 and
7.95, respectively (see Table III for details). These study findings supported previous
studies, particularly in developing countries. For instance, Kumaraswamy and Zhang (2001)
identified land acquisition as a complicated issue in PPPs and found that some PPP road
projects in Bangkok, Thailand and Guangzhou in China were delayed due to late delivery of
land. Estache et al. (2007) found that land acquisition can be a protracted process with the
potential for extensive legal delays, particularly in developing countries. UN-ESCAP (2008)
reported that resettlement and rehabilitation for PPP projects implementation become
difficult, due to resistance from the affected people and other interested groups. Lamond
et al. (2015) claimed that Nigeria is still known for delays and the high cost of processing of
construction permits and land transactions.

Seaport
Water and Sanitary
Rails
Hospital
IT and Communication
Airport
Power and energy
Figure 2. University hostel
Type of PPP
infrastructure Road
executed by Market complex
respondent
Housing and Office
organizations
0 10 20 30 40 50
 Public sector
authorities Concessionaires Banks
n ¼ 20 n ¼ 25 n ¼ 15
Total Intra-phase Overall Kruskal–Wallis
Risk category and phase of predominance Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank mean rank rank Sig.

A. Development phase
DP 01 Land acquisition/site availability 7.60 2.28 1 8.32 1.65 8 9.99 1.11 1 8.64 1 1 0.076
DP 02 Creditworthiness of the other project
sponsors 7.55 2.30 2 8.00 1.68 12 9.07 0.80 2 8.21 2 3 0.064
DP 03 Inadequate negotiation period prior to initiation 6.45 2.32 9 8.08 1.73 11 7.07 2.19 10 7.20 11 37 0.037*
DP 04 Uncompetitive tender process 6.85 2.85 6 8.24 1.76 9 6.87 2.45 11 7.32 10 28 0.106
DP 05 Fault in tender specification 5.95 3.19 12 8.20 1.00 10 6.80 2.73 12 6.98 12 54 0.089
DP 06 Delay in financial closure 5.95 3.02 11 8.64 1.19 4 7.80 2.31 6 7.46 8 24 0.003*
DP 07 High bidding costs 6.15 3.31 10 8.56 1.29 6 7.53 2.72 9 7.41 9 25 0.059
DP 08 Lack of government guarantees 6.70 3.34 7 8.76 1.42 1 7.67 2.58 8 7.71 7 12 0.141
DP 09 Delay in project approvals and permits 7.05 3.47 4 8.60 1.44 5 8.73 1.53 3 8.13 3 5 0.459
DP 10 Financial attraction of project to investors 7.10 2.83 3 8.68 1.25 3 8.13 2.53 5 7.97 4 6 0.187
DP 11 Resettlement and rehabilitation 6.95 3.00 5 8.44 1.12 7 8.47 2.36 4 7.95 5 7 0.115
DP 12 Design deficiency 6.69 2.46 8 8.73 1.24 2 7.78 3.38 7 7.73 6 11 0.031*
B. Construction phase
CP 01 Availability of finance 7.10 3.08 1 8.76 1.36 1 8.73 2.02 3 8.20 2 4 0.088
CP 02 High finance cost 6.80 3.05 2 8.52 1.66 3 9.40 0.91 1 8.24 1 2 0.063
CP 03 Improper quality control 6.20 3.07 6 8.36 1.41 4 8.40 2.16 10 7.65 5 16 0.078
CP 04 Construction cost overrun 5.95 2.95 10 8.36 1.63 5 8.53 1.88 6 7.61 6 18 0.052
CP 05 Unproven engineering techniques 5.55 3.03 13 7.80 2.47 12 6.87 2.97 17 6.74 17 62 0.034*
CP 06 Construction time delay 6.65 2.98 3 8.32 1.63 6 8.13 2.42 12 7.70 4 14 0.101
CP 07 Material/labor availability 6.25 3.24 4 8.04 1.49 9 8.27 1.36 11 7.52 8 21 0.071
CP 08 Third-party tort liability 5.10 2.88 17 8.04 1.43 8 8.53 3.22 7 7.22 11 34 0.000*
CP 09 Insolvency/default of subcontractors and
suppliers 6.15 2.94 7 7.52 1.48 17 7.93 1.94 13 7.20 12 37 0.029*
CP 10 Excessive contract variation 6.25 3.30 5 8.16 1.67 7 8.73 1.92 2 7.71 3 12 0.061
CP 11 Poor quality of workmanship 6.10 3.16 9 7.92 1.53 11 8.60 2.32 5 7.54 7 20 0.013*

(continued )
factors in PPP

343
project phases

probability of
occurrence of risk
Critical risk

factors in PPP

in Nigeria
infrastructure projects
Stakeholders ranking
Table III.

of the likelihood/
 BIJ
26,2

344

Table III.
Public sector
authorities Concessionaires Banks
n ¼ 20 n ¼ 25 n ¼ 15
Total Intra-phase Overall Kruskal–Wallis
Risk category and phase of predominance Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank mean rank rank Sig.

CP 12 Late design changes 6.15 3.20 8 7.64 1.41 14 7.60 2.29 16 7.13 13 40 0.313
CP 13 Manpower problem associated with trade unions 5.50 2.87 14 7.64 2.38 16 7.87 2.34 14 7.00 16 53 0.005*
CP 14 Geotechnical conditions 5.80 3.04 11 7.64 1.93 15 7.73 1.92 15 7.06 15 47 0.051
CP 15 Change of scope 5.25 3.04 15 7.68 1.81 13 8.47 1.92 8 7.13 13 40 0.060
CP 16 Contractor failure 5.60 3.17 12 7.96 2.05 10 8.67 1.91 4 7.41 10 25 0.003*
CP 17 Health and safety onsite 5.30 3.06 16 8.68 1.18 2 8.47 2.07 9 7.48 9 23 0.001*
C. Operation phase
OP 01 Inability to service debt 6.10 3.55 1 7.84 1.80 3 9.13 0.92 1 7.69 2 15 0.056
OP 02 Operating cost overrun 5.60 3.47 6 7.80 1.76 4 9.07 0.92 2 7.49 3 22 0.064
OP 03 Delays or interruption in operation 5.85 3.42 3 8.52 0.92 1 9.07 0.96 3 7.81 1 8 0.074
OP 04 Failure to meet service quality 5.45 3.46 10 7.80 2.12 5 7.93 2.28 9 7.06 7 47 0.017*
OP 05 Operator default 5.35 3.25 13 7.36 2.02 11 8.00 2.85 8 6.90 10 59 0.073
OP 06 Changes in taxes/tariffs 5.40 3.19 12 7.40 2.25 10 8.47 2.36 5 7.09 4 43 0.087
OP 07 Rate of return restrictions 5.40 3.17 11 7.00 2.43 14 7.53 2.39 11 6.64 13 67 0.064
OP 08 Life of facility shorter than anticipated 5.50 3.20 7 7.28 2.13 12 8.47 1.77 4 7.08 5 44 0.173
OP 09 Competitive market (a product with close
substitute) 5.45 3.17 9 7.96 1.93 2 6.73 2.81 13 6.71 12 63 0.067
OP 10 Market demand/usage risk 5.35 3.25 13 7.44 2.27 9 6.40 3.11 14 6.40 14 70 0.078
OP 11 Maintenance cost higher than expected 6.05 3.43 2 7.48 1.92 8 7.53 2.26 10 7.02 8 51 0.449
OP 12 Maintenance more frequent than expected 5.50 3.38 8 7.12 2.17 13 8.27 2.09 6 6.96 9 55 0.018*
OP 13 Low operating productivity 5.60 3.36 5 7.56 1.89 7 8.07 2.43 7 7.08 5 44 0.031*
OP 14 Operational revenues below projection/ 5.65 3.28 4 7.72 2.32 6 7.13 2.50 12 6.83 11 61 0.082
expectation
D. Project life cycle
LC 01 Corruption and lack of respect for law 6.05 3.66 9 8.00 2.50 4 9.20 0.94 1 7.75 2 10 0.126
LC 02 Unstable government 6.20 3.53 5 8.00 2.00 3 9.07 1.62 2 7.76 1 9 0.113

(continued )
 Public sector
authorities Concessionaires Banks
n ¼ 20 n ¼ 25 n ¼ 15
Total Intra-phase Overall Kruskal–Wallis
Risk category and phase of predominance Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank mean rank rank Sig.

LC 03 Possible expropriation/or nationalization of 5.20 3.25 23 7.44 2.47 20 7.47 2.42 23 6.70 24 65 0.060
assets
LC 04 Inconsistencies in government policies 6.05 3.43 8 8.00 1.94 2 7.60 2.47 21 7.22 11 34 0.168
LC 05 Political opposition/hostility 5.85 3.34 13 7.72 1.97 11 7.53 2.47 22 7.03 16 49 0.131
LC 06 Poor financial market 6.20 3.50 4 7.44 2.35 19 7.13 2.64 27 6.92 20 57 0.685
LC 07 Inflation rate volatility 6.25 3.43 2 7.52 2.28 16 8.20 1.90 10 7.32 6 28 0.242
LC 08 Interest rate volatility 6.10 3.35 6 8.08 2.40 1 8.60 2.06 5 7.59 4 19 0.116
LC 09 Exchange rate fluctuation 6.25 3.35 1 8.00 2.27 5 8.60 2.13 6 7.62 3 17 0.630
LC 10 Influential economic event (boom/recession) 5.35 3.48 21 7.84 2.21 6 8.13 2.42 14 7.11 14 42 0.083
LC 11 Legislation change/inconsistencies 5.55 3.62 16 7.80 2.12 8 8.33 2.50 8 7.23 10 33 0.096
LC 12 Import/export restrictions 5.50 3.41 18 7.80 2.29 10 8.60 2.03 4 7.30 8 31 0.085
LC 13 Public opposition to projects 5.10 3.40 26 7.80 2.24 9 8.20 2.14 12 7.03 16 49 0.118
LC 14 Non-involvement of host-community 4.95 3.20 27 7.36 2.31 22 7.60 2.35 19 6.64 26 67 0.083
LC 15 Cultural differences between main stakeholders 5.15 3.23 25 7.52 2.06 15 7.47 2.50 26 6.71 23 63 0.125
LC 16 Force majeure 5.15 3.15 24 7.08 2.36 26 7.60 2.41 20 6.61 27 69 0.025*
LC 17 Environment 5.75 3.13 14 7.72 2.41 13 8.07 2.02 16 7.18 13 39 0.118
LC 18 Political interference 5.95 3.28 10 7.72 2.23 12 8.27 1.87 9 7.31 7 30 0.070
LC 19 Financiers unwilling to take high risk 6.20 3.37 3 7.20 2.52 23 8.60 1.50 3 7.33 5 27 0.056
LC 20 Government influence on disputes 5.95 3.28 10 7.68 2.38 14 8.20 2.04 11 7.28 9 32 0.057
LC 21 Industrial regulatory change 5.50 3.32 17 7.80 2.16 7 7.47 2.45 24 6.92 20 57 0.068
LC 22 Bankruptcy 5.30 3.40 22 7.40 2.86 21 8.00 2.14 18 6.90 22 59 0.030*
LC 23 Inadequate experience in PPP 5.45 3.27 20 7.12 2.82 25 7.47 2.47 25 6.68 25 66 0.123
LC 24 Lack of commitment from public/private partner 6.10 3.40 7 7.48 2.29 18 8.07 1.71 15 7.22 11 34 0.260
LC 25 Inadequate distribution of authority between 5.45 3.15 19 7.52 2.60 17 8.07 2.19 17 7.01 18 52 0.117
partners
LC 26 Different working methods/know-how 5.60 3.10 15 7.16 2.61 24 8.13 2.26 13 6.96 19 55 0.025*
between partners
LC 27 Staff crises 5.90 3.54 12 6.92 2.83 27 8.40 1.84 7 7.07 15 46 0.079
Note: *Significant at 5 percent

Table III.
factors in PPP

345
project phases
Critical risk
BIJ In order to test if there is any statistically significant difference in the perceptions of the
26,2 three stakeholder groups comprising public sector authorities, concessionaires and lenders/
banks in the analysis of the ranking in terms of the mean score values for the 12 identified
risk factors at the development phase, Kruskal–Wallis test was undertaken at a significance
level of 5 percent. This approach was similar to previous studies (see Roumboutsos and
Anagnostopoulos, 2008; Yong and Mustaffa, 2013; Babatunde et al., 2015). As it can be seen
346 from Table III, the results of Kruskal–Wallis test indicated that except for 3 (out of 12)
identified risk factors at the development phase, there is no statistically significant
difference in the perceptions of stakeholders on the risk factors at the development phase for
PPP infrastructure projects in Nigeria. Thus, the three risk factors include inadequate
negotiation period prior to initiation, delay in financial closure and design deficiency
(see Table III for details). This slight difference is not surprising considering the variations
in the conditions of respective PPP infrastructure projects.
Construction phase. Table III further revealed the ranking for each of the 17 identified risk
factors at construction phase of PPP infrastructure projects with the total mean score values
ranging from 6.74 to 8.24; this implied that vast majority of the identified risk factors are
recognized by the respondents as serious risk factors influencing PPP infrastructure projects
at construction phase in Nigeria. In addition, Table III indicated the most top 5 ranked risk
factors with very high likelihood of occurrence at construction phase including high finance
cost, availability of finance, excessive contract variation, construction time delay and
improper quality control with their total mean score values of 8.24, 8.20, 7.71, 7.70 and 7.65,
respectively (see Table III for details). These study findings confirmed the previous studies,
most especially the WEF (2010) reports on the global competitiveness of 139 countries that
found availability of finance and affordability of finance service as the most problematic for
facilitating business in Nigeria with a ranking position of 90th and 84th, respectively.
Ogunsemi (2002) found excessive contract variation, construction delay and availability of
finance as factors responsible for the poor performance of the construction industry in Nigeria.
In addition, the result of Kruskal–Wallis test indicated that there is statistically
significant difference between the opinions of the three stakeholder groups on 7 (out of 17)
identified risk factors at construction phase for PPP infrastructure projects in Nigeria.
These risk factors include unproven engineering techniques, third-party tort liability,
insolvency/default of subcontractors and suppliers, poor quality of workmanship,
manpower problem associated with trade unions, contractor failure and health and safety
onsite (see Table III for details).
Operation phase. In the same vein, Table III indicated the analysis of the ranking in terms
of the total mean score values for the 14 identified risk factors at the operation phase
ranging from 6.40 to 7.81; this signifies that many of these identified risk factors
are considered by the respondents as important risk factors influencing PPP infrastructure
projects at operation phase in Nigeria. The most top 5 ranked risk factors with very high
likelihood of occurrence at operation phase are: delays or interruption in operation, inability
to service debt, operating cost overrun, changes in taxes/tariffs and life of facility shorter
than anticipated with their total mean score values of 7.81, 7.69, 7.49, 7.09 and 7.08,
respectively (see Table III for details). Furthermore, the Kruskal–Wallis test result indicates
that there is statistically significant difference on 3 (out of 14) identified risk factors at
operation phase (see Table III for details). These three risk factors are a failure to meet
service quality, maintenance more frequent than expected and low operating productivity.
Project life cycle phase. Table III showed the ranking for each of the 27 identified risk
factors at project life cycle phase of PPP infrastructure projects with the total mean score
values ranging from 6.61 to 7.76 (see Table III for details). It can be seen from Table III
that vast majority of the identified risk factors have the total mean scores greater than
7.00; hence, they are recognized by the respondents as important risk factors at project life Critical risk
cycle phase of PPP infrastructure projects in Nigeria. Similarly, Table III revealed the most factors in PPP
top 5 ranked risk factors with very high likelihood of occurrence at project life cycle phase project phases
including unstable government, corruption and lack of respect for law, exchange rate
fluctuation, interest rate volatility and financiers unwilling to take high risk with their total
mean score values of 7.76, 7.75, 7.62, 7.59 and 7.33, respectively (see Table III for details).
These study findings concurred with previous studies, most especially Ibrahim et al. (2006) 347
and Awodele (2012) that identified unstable government, and corruption and lack of respect
for law among the top ranked exogenous risk factors influencing PPP projects implementation
in Nigeria. This is affirmed by Babatunde (2015) who found accusations of corruption and
corrupt tendencies in Nigeria as a major bane to PPP projects implementation in Nigeria.
Thus, this portrays the entire country as a corrupt environment for PPPs, thus, discouraging
genuine local and foreign investors from participating in the Nigerian PPPs market.
Furthermore, the result of Kruskal–Wallis test showed that there is statistically significant
difference between the three stakeholder groups on 3 (out of 27) identified risk factors at
project life cycle phase of PPP infrastructure projects. These three risk factors include force
majeure, bankruptcy and different working methods/know-how between partners. This slight
difference is not surprising considering the variations in the conditions of respective PPP
infrastructure projects (see Table III for details).

Assessment of the criticality of risk factors in PPP project phase

In assessing the criticality of the risks factors from the identified 70 risk factors, the risk
significance index in terms of likelihood of occurrence and severity was calculated for each
factor, based on a ten-point Likert rating scale (see Table I). Thus, the overall mean score
for each risk factor in terms of likelihood of occurrence and severity was multiplied (see
Table VI), as project risk is a joint function of the likelihood of occurrence and severity. This
approach was similar to previous studies (see Zou et al., 2007; Xu et al., 2010; Ke et al., 2011;
Ameyaw and Chan, 2015). Furthermore, the resultant value was used to determine the
criticality of the identified risk factors, based on a scale developed as shown in Table IV.
Table V indicated the standard risk matrix, which was used to determine the risk zone
for each identified risk factor. The matrix is 5 by 5 with the likelihood of occurrence ranging
from VL (Very low) to VH (Very high) on the vertical axis and the severity (with the same
range) on the horizontal axis.

Scale (%) Likelihood of occurrence Severity

o20 Very low (VL) Very low (VL)

20–40 Low (L) Low (L)
40–60 Moderate (M) Moderate (M)
60–80 High (H) High (H) Table IV.
80–100 Very high (VH) Very high (VH) Criticality scale

VL L M H VH

VL Green Green Green Yellow Red

L Green Green Yellow Red Red
M Green Green Yellow Red Red
H Green Yellow Red Red Red Table V.
VH Green Yellow Red Red Red The risk matrix
BIJ As shown in Table V, the matrix was classified into three zones. These include green, yellow
26,2 and red (The US Federal Highway Administration Office of International Programs, 2007).
The characteristics of the zones are as follows:
• Green zone: risks in this zone are low level, and can be ignored.
• Yellow zone: risks in this zone are of moderate importance, and should be controlled.
348 • Red zone: risks in this zone are of critical importance. These are the top priorities and
are risks that demand utmost attention.
Development phase. Table VI showed the identified 12 risk factors at development phase of
PPP infrastructure projects. The results indicated that 6 risk factors are located in the red
zone, namely, land acquisition/site availability, creditworthiness of the other project
sponsors, delay in financial closure, delay in project approvals and permits, the financial
attraction of project to investors and resettlement and rehabilitation. The other 6 risk factors
are located in the yellow zone.
Construction phase. Table VI indicated the identified 17 risk factors at construction phase
of PPP infrastructure projects. The result revealed that 6 risk factors are located in the red
zone, this includes the availability of finance, high finance cost, improper quality control,
construction cost overrun, construction time delay and excessive contract variation. The
other 11 risk factors are located in the yellow zone.
Operation phase. Table VI revealed the identified 14 risk factors at operation phase of
PPP infrastructure projects. The result showed that 3 risk factors are located in the red zone,
this includes the inability to service debt, operating cost overrun and delays or interruption
in operation. The other 11 risk factors are located in the yellow zone.
Project life cycle phase. Table VI revealed the identified 27 risk factors at project life cycle
phase of PPP infrastructure projects. The result indicated that 4 risk factors are located in
the red zone, they are corruption and lack of respect for law, unstable government, interest
rate volatility and exchange rate fluctuation. The other 23 risk factors are located in the
yellow zone.

Identification of critical risk factors

Table VII indicated the most critical risk factors affecting each PPP project phase in Nigeria.
These critical risk factors are identified in each PPP project phase comprising development
phase, construction phase, operation phase and project life cycle phase. In this study, a total
of 19 (out of 70) risk factors were identified as critical risk factors in PPP projects in Nigeria
(see Table VII for details).
As indicated in Table VII, the risk factors in this red zone are of critical importance.
Thus, these are the top priorities and are risk factors that demand utmost management by
both the public and private actors to guarantee success in present and future PPP
infrastructure projects implementation in Nigeria and other developing countries.

Conclusions
Understanding and enhancing knowledge of PPPs continues to be a matter of significance
and importance. Thus, it is important for all stakeholders in PPPs to have an in-depth
understanding of PPPs environment with a view to responding actively to various risks
associated with PPP infrastructure projects implementation, particularly in developing
countries. It is against this backdrop that this study identified and assessed the various risk
factors associated with PPP infrastructure project phases comprising development phase,
construction phase, operation phase and project life cycle. In achieving this, the study
adopted four key approaches for data gathering including literature review, desk review,
 Critical risk
factors in PPP
project phases

349

Table VI.
Risk factors matrix
for PPP
(continued ) projects phase
BIJ
26,2

350

Table VI.

brainstorming session and questionnaire survey. In total, 70 risk factors associated with
PPP infrastructure projects were identified, which were grouped into four phases of PPP
projects including development phase with 12 identified risk factors, construction phase
with 17 identified risk factors, operation phase with 14 identified risk factors and project life
cycle with 27 identified risk factors.
The analysis of the mean score ranking for these identified risk factors in each phase of
PPP project revealed that all the identified risk factors are considered by the three
stakeholder groups comprising public sector authorities, concessionaires and lenders/banks
as important risk factors influencing PPP infrastructure projects in Nigeria. The results of
 Critical risk
factors in PPP
project phases

351

Table VII.
Identified critical
risk factors in
PPP infrastructure
projects phase

Kruskal–Wallis test indicated that except for 16 (out of 70) identified risk factors, there is no
statistically significant difference in the perceptions of the three stakeholder groups
comprising public sector authorities, concessionaires and lenders/banks on the rating of the
identified risk factors in PPP project phases. This slight difference is not surprising
considering the variations in the conditions of respective PPP projects implementation.
The study further identified the most critical risk factors in each PPP project phase as
follows: six critical risk factors were identified at development phase, these include land
acquisition/site availability, creditworthiness of the other project sponsors, delay in financial
closure, delay in project approvals and permits, financial attraction of project to investors and
resettlement and rehabilitation. Six critical risk factors were also identified at construction phase
comprising availability of finance, high finance cost, improper quality control, construction cost
overrun, construction time delay and excessive contract variation. At operation phase, three
critical risk factors were identified, they are inability to service debt, operating cost overrun and
delays or interruption in operation. At project life cycle phase, four critical risk factors were
identified, these include corruption and lack of respect for law, unstable government, interest
rate volatility and exchange rate fluctuation. Overall, a total of 19 (out of 70) risk factors were
identified as critical risk factors while the other 51 risk factors were considered moderate.
This study is not without limitations. Although the use of questionnaire survey allows
large sample to be captured, having other methods together such as interviews and the use of
case study approach may enrich the findings. Second, the results could be enhanced in future
work, using other valuable analysis in determining the criticality of risk factors in PPP project
phases. Despite its limitations, it is believed that this study is significant. For instance, the
identification of specific critical risk factors in each PPP project phase will assist the PPP
stakeholders, particularly primary stakeholders to focus their attention, priorities and
leadership in managing the identified critical risk factors in achieving value for money. Also,
the identified critical risk factors can be used to develop a risk management framework
suitable for stakeholders, especially primary stakeholders in PPP infrastructure projects
development in developing countries. In addition, this study is important in providing an in-
depth understanding of the current Nigeria’s PPP market environment, which is a true
reflection of developing countries as a whole. This is highly beneficial to both the potential and
BIJ current PPP stakeholders, especially private investors within and outside Nigeria by guiding
26,2 them in decision making and planning toward PPP projects implementation in developing
countries at large. This study recommends that further study should be conducted on specific
PPP projects and a comparative study should be undertaken across PPP projects with a view
to identifying the structure of risk factors in different PPP projects.

352 References
Abdul-Aziz, A.R. (2001), “Unraveling of BOT scheme: Malaysia’s Indah water consortium”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 127 No. 6, pp. 457-460.
Abednego, M.P. and Ogunlana, S.O. (2006), “Good project governance for proper risk allocation in
public–private partnerships in Indonesia”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24
No. 7, pp. 622-634.
Akintoye, A., Taylor, C. and Fitzgerald, E. (1998), “Risk analysis and management of private finance
initiative projects”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 9-21.
Ameyaw, E.E. and Chan, A.P.C. (2013), “Identifying public–private partnership (PPP) risks in managing
water supply projects in Ghana”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 152-182.
Ameyaw, E.E. and Chan, A.P.C. (2015), “Risk ranking and analysis in PPP water supply infrastructure
projects”, Facilities, Vol. 33 Nos 7/8, pp. 428-453.
Ameyaw, E.E. and Chan, A.P.C. (2016), “A fuzzy approach for the allocation of risks in public–private
partnership water-infrastructure projects in developing countries”, Journal of Infrastructure
Systems, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 1-13.
Arndt, R. and Maguire, G. (1999), “Risk allocation and identification project-survey report”, Department
of Treasury and Finance, University of Melbourne.
Awodele, A.O. (2012), “Framework for managing risk in privately financed market projects in Nigeria”,
PhD thesis, Heriot-Watt University.
Babatunde, S.O. (2015), “Developing public–private partnership strategy for infrastructure delivery in
Nigeria”, PhD thesis, Northumbria University.
Babatunde, S.O., Opawole, A. and Akinsiku, O.E. (2012), “Critical success factors in public–private
partnership (PPP) on infrastructure delivery in Nigeria”, Journal of Facilities Management,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 212-225.
Babatunde, S.O., Perera, S. and Zhou, L. (2016), “Methodology for developing capability maturity levels
for PPP stakeholders’ organizations using critical success factors”, Construction Innovation,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 81-110.
Babatunde, S.O., Perera, S., Zhou, L. and Udeaja, C. (2015), “Barriers to public–private partnership
(PPP) projects in developing countries: a case of Nigeria”, Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 669-691.
Babatunde, S.O., Perera, S., Zhou, L. and Udeaja, C. (2016), “Stakeholder perceptions on critical success
factors for public–private partnership projects in Nigeria”, Built Environment Project and Asset
Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 74-91.
Badu, E., Edwards, D.J., Owusu-Manu, D. and Brown, D.M. (2012), “Barriers to the implementation of
innovative financing (IF) of infrastructure”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and
Construction, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 253-273.
Bryman, A. (2006), “Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how it is done?”, Quantitative
Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 97-113.
Carbonara, N., Costantino, N., Gunnigan, L. and Pellegrino, R. (2015), “Risk management in motorway
PPP projects: empirical-based guidelines”, Transport Reviews, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 162-182.
Chen, Z., Yuan, J. and Li, Q. (2017), “Financing risk analysis and case study of public–private
partnerships infrastructure project”, in Wu, Y., Zheng, S., Luo, J., Wang, W., Mo, Z. and Shan, L.
(Eds), Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium on Advancement of Construction
Management and Real Estate, Springer, Singapore, pp. 405-416.
Chan, A.P.C., Lam, P.T.I., Chan, D.W.M., Cheung, E. and Ke, Y. (2010), “Critical success factors for PPP Critical risk
in infrastructure development: Chinese perspective”, Journal of Construction Engineering and factors in PPP
Management, Vol. 136 No. 5, pp. 484-494.
Cheung, E. (2009), “Developing a best practice framework for implementing public–private partnership
project phases
(PPPs) in Hong Kong”, PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology.
Chou, J.S. and Pramudawardhani, D. (2015), “Cross-country comparisons of key drivers, critical success
factors and risk allocation for public–private partnership projects”, International Journal of 353
Project Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 1136-1150.
Corner, D. (2006), “The United Kingdom private finance initiative: the challenge of allocating risk”,
OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 38-55.
Dainty, A. (2007), “A call for methodological pluralism in built environment research”, Proceedings of
the Third Scottish Conference for Postgraduate Researchers of the Built and Natural
Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University, November 20-22.
Dixon, T., Pottinger, G. and Jordan, A. (2005), “Lessons from the private finance initiative in the UK:
benefits, problems, and critical success factors”, Journal of Property Investment and Finance,
Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 412-423.
Elbing, C. and Devapriya, K.A.K. (2004), “Structured risk management process to achieve value for
money in public–private partnerships”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and
Construction, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 121-127.
Estache, A., Juan, E. and Trujillo, L. (2007), “Public–private partnerships in transport”, Policy Research
Working Paper No. 4436, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Field, A. (2005), Discovering Statistics using SPSS, Sage, London.
Field, A. (2013), Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics, Sage, London.
Field, A. and Miles, J. (2012), Discovering Statistics Using SAS, Sage, London.
Finlay, L. (2006), “Mapping methodology”, in Finlay, L. and Ballinger, C. (Eds), Qualitative Research for
Allied Health Professionals: Challenging Choices, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 9-29.
Flick, U. (2006), An Introduction to Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, London.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2007), “Policy and planning for large infrastructure projects: problems, causes, cures”,
Environment and Planning Part B, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 578-597.
Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N. and Rothengatter, W. (2003), Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of
Ambition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M.K.S. and Buhl, S.L. (2003), “How common and how large are cost overruns in
transport infrastructure projects”, Transport Reviews, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 71-88.
George, D. and Mallery, P. (2003), SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference 11.0
Update, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
Grimsey, D. and Lewis, M.K. (2002), “Evaluating the risks of public–private partnerships for
infrastructure projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 107-118.
Gupta, A.K., Trivedi, M.K. and Kansal, R. (2013), “Risk variation assessment of Indian road PPP projects”,
International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 1017-1026.
Ibrahim, A.D., Prince, A.D.F. and Dainty, A.R.J. (2006), “The analysis and allocation of risks in public–
private partnerships in infrastructure projects in Nigeria”, Journal of Financial Management of
Property and Construction, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 149-163.
ICRC (2012), “PPP manual for Nigeria”, Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission, available
at: www.ppptoolkit.icrc.gov.ng (accessed October 31, 2015).
Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC) (2014), “Public-private partnership
projects pipeline”, available at: www.icrc.gov.ng/projects.php (accessed November 24, 2016).
Ke, Y., Wang, S.Q., Chan, A.P.C. and Cheung, E. (2011), “Understanding the risks in China’s PPP
projects: ranking of their probability and consequence”, Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 481-496.
BIJ Ke, Y.J., Wang, S.Q., Chan, A.P.C. and Lam, P.T.I. (2010), “Preferred risk allocation in China’s
26,2 public–private partnership (PPP) projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28
No. 5, pp. 482-492.
Kruskal, W.H. and Wallis, W.A. (1952), “Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis”, Journal of the
American Statistical Association, Vol. 47 No. 260, pp. 583-621.
Kumaraswamy, M.M. and Zhang, X.Q. (2001), “Government role in BOT-led infrastructure
354 development”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 195-205.
Kwak, Y.H., Chih, Y.Y. and Ibbs, W. (2009), “Towards a comprehensive understanding of public–private
partnerships for infrastructure development”, California Management Review, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 51-78.
Lamond, J., Awuah, B.K., Lewis, E., Bloch, R. and Falade, B.J. (2015), “Urban land, planning and
governance systems in Nigeria”, Urbanisation Research Nigeria (URN) Research Report,
ICF International, London.
Leiringer, R. (2003), “Technological innovations in the context of public–private partnership projects”,
PhD thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
Li, B. (2003), “Risk management of construction public–private partnership projects”, PhD thesis,
Glasgow Caledonian University.
Li, B., Akintoye, A., Edwards, P.J. and Hardcastle, C. (2005), “The allocation of risk in PPP/PFI construction
projects in the UK”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 25-35.
Li, B., Tiong, R.L.K., Wong, W.F. and Chew, D.A.S. (1999), “Risk management in international
construction joint ventures”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 125
No. 4, pp. 277-284.
Liyanage, C. and Villalba-Romero, F. (2015), “Measuring success of PPP transport projects: a cross-case
analysis of toll roads”, Transport Reviews, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 140-161.
Love, P.D., Holt, G.D. and Li, H. (2002), “Triangulation in construction management research”, Journal
of Engineering, Construction and Architectural, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 294-303.
McCallin, A.M. (2003), “Designing a grounded theory study: some practicalities”, Nursing in Critical
Care, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 203-208.
Merna, A. and Smith, N.J. (1996), Guide to the Preparation and Evaluation of Build-Own-Operate-
Transfer (BOOT) Project Tenders, Asia Law and Practice, Hong Kong.
Murphy, M.E., Heaney, G. and Perera, S. (2011), “A methodology for evaluating construction innovation
constraints through project stakeholder competencies and FMEA”, Construction Innovation,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 416-440.
Ng, A. and Loosemore, M. (2007), “Risk allocation in the private provision of public infrastructure”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 66-76.
OECD (2008), “Public–private partnerships: in pursuit of risk sharing and value for money”, available
at: www.egov.vic.gov.au/index.php (accessed October 31, 2015).
Ogunsemi, D.R. (2002), “Cost and time performance of construction projects in South-western Nigeria”,
PhD thesis, Federal University of Technology, Akure.
Osei-Kyei, R. and Chan, A.P. (2017), “Perceptions of stakeholders on the critical success factors for
operational management of public–private partnership projects”, Facilities, Vol. 35 Nos 1/2,
pp. 21-38.
Osei-Kyei, R., Chan, A.P., Javed, A.A. and Ameyaw, E.E. (2017), “Critical success criteria for
public–private partnership projects: international experts’ opinion”, International Journal of
Strategic Property Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 87-100.
Pellegrino, R., Vajdic, N. and Carbonara, N. (2013), “Real options theory for risk mitigation in transport
PPPs”, Built Environment Project and Asset Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 199-213.
Raftery, J. (1994), Risk Analysis in Project Management, E & FN Spoon, London.
Ramcharran, H. (1998), “Obstacles and opportunities in international engineering services”, Journal of
Management in Engineering, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 38-46.
Roumboutsos, A. and Anagnostopoulos, K.P. (2008), “Public–private partnership projects in Greece: Critical risk
risk ranking and preferred risk allocation”, Construction Management, and Economics, Vol. 26 factors in PPP
No. 7, pp. 751-763.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2012), Research Methods for Business Students, Pearson,
project phases
New York, NY.
The US Federal Highway Administration Office of International Programs (2007), “Guide to the risk
assessment and allocation process in highway construction”, available at: http://international.
fhwa.dot.gov/riskassess/images/riskmap.cfm (accessed February 20, 2016).
355
Thomas, A.V., Kalidindi, S.N. and Ganesh, L.S. (2006), “Modeling and assessment of critical risks in
BOT road projects”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 407-424.
Thurairajah, N., Haigh, R. and Amaratunga, R.D.G. (2006), “Leadership in construction partnering
projects: research methodological perspectives”, in Stephenson, P. and Akintoye, A. (Eds),
ARCOM Doctoral Workshop, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, pp. 35-48.
UN-ESCAP (2008), “A primer to public–private partnerships in infrastructure development”, United
Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, available at: www.unescap.
org/ttdw/ppp/ppp_primer/343 (accessed July 20, 2015).
Vetiva (2011), “Construction industry report a haven of opportunities”, available at: www.proshareng.
com/admin/upload/reports (accessed October 10, 2015).
Wang, S.Q., Dulaimi, M.F. and Aguria, M.Y. (2004), “Risk management framework for construction projects
in developing countries”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 237-252.
Wibowo, A. and Mohamed, S. (2008), “Perceived risk allocation in public–private-partnered (PPP)
water supply projects in Indonesia”, First International Conference on Construction in Developing
Countries, Karachi, August 4-5.
World Bank (2011), “Towards better infrastructure conditions, constraints, and opportunities in
financing public–private partnerships: evidence from Cameroon, Cote D’ Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya,
Nigeria, and Senegal”, available at: www.ppiaf.org/sites/ppiaf.org/files/publication/PPP_
Ghana_Book_FINAL.pdf (accessed February 14, 2016).
WEF (2010), “The global competitiveness report 2010–2011”, The Centre for Global Competitiveness
and Performance (CGCP), World Economic Forum, Geneva.
Xenidis, Y. and Angelides, D. (2005), “The financial risks in build operate transfer projects”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 431-441.
Xu, Y., Chan, A.P.C. and Yeung, J.F.Y. (2010), “Developing a fuzzy risk allocation model for PPP projects
in China”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 136 No. 8, pp. 894-903.
Xu, Y., Yang, Y., Chan, A.P.C., Yeung, J.F.Y. and Cheng, H. (2011), “Identification and allocation of risks
associated with PPP water projects in china”, International Journal of Strategic Property
Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 275-294.
Yin, R.K. (2009), Case Study Research, Design and Methods: Applied Social Research Methods Series,
Sage Publications, London.
Yong, Y.C. and Mustaffa, N.E. (2013), “Critical success factors for Malaysian construction projects: an
empirical assessment”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 31 No. 9, pp. 959-978.
Zikmund, W.G. (2003), Business Research Methods, Thomson Learning.
Zou, P.X.W., Zhang, G. and Wang, J. (2007), “Understanding the key risks in construction projects in
China”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 601-614.

Corresponding author
Solomon Olusola Babatunde can be contacted at: sobabatunde80@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com