A stakeholder perspective on social stability risk of public–private partnerships project for water environmental governance in China: A social network analysis

Abstract

The pluralism of stakeholders in PPP project for water environmental governance and the complex interrelationship among stakeholders are the important factors affecting social stability risk. Previous studies have mainly focused on risk identification and assessment. We aim to investigate the key social risks of PPP project for water environmental governance, to understand which social risks stakeholders are concerned about, and what interactions they follow. First, relevant risks and their interrelationships were investigated through a literature review and interviews. Second, the key social stability risks were identified based on social network analysis. Third, strategies were proposed to mitigate the social stability risks. The results show that government corruption, government intervention risk, approved risk, poor contract design risk price change and policy and regulation risk are the key risks with the highest in/out-degree, centrality and ego network size. Four core stakeholder groups (i.e., government, contractors, project companies, and the public and the media) and four core challenges (i.e., difficulties in financing, lack of mass incidents prevention mechanism, incomplete project schedule control system and improper handling of benefit compensation issues) have intensive relationships. We concluded that controlling the complicated relationships among four core stakeholder groups can reduce the social stability risks. The social network analysis framework combining stakeholder management and risk management provides a reference for the management of PPP projects for water environmental governance.

Exploring the Evolution Mechanisms of Social Risks Associated with Urban Renewal from the Perspective of Stakeholders

“…The second tier consisted of EER (0.363) and OMR (0.479). Improper management by the leading authority in UR may affect the interests of vulnerable stakeholder groups [29,37]. For example, the deterioration of the urban environment during project construction can harm the interests of nearby residents and the general public [15].…”

“…These effects primarily materialized through direct means, accompanied by a coefficient of indirect effects of 0.1945. This indicated that the influence of OMR stems from the inadequate management practices of authoritative entities such as governmental bodies and developers [29,37]. Furthermore, OMR demonstrated a positive correlation with both EDR and EER, with coefficients of direct effects of 0.187 and 0.24, respectively, highlighting the essential role of effectively managing OMR in controlling URSRs.…”

“…UR projects often entail intricate ownership structures, necessitating a delicate balance between the interests of property owners, developers, local governments, and the public [8,15]. Erroneous decision making in this context can lead to improper distribution of benefits and project setbacks and even trigger social conflicts or tensions, leading to social unrest or instability [29,37]. As a consequence, UR endeavors are susceptible to organizational management risk (OMR) [38].…”

“…On the other hand, external stakeholders are individuals or groups whose interests are indirectly affected as a result of their cooperative or trust-based relationships with the directly affected parties [40,44]. The protest actions of external stakeholders are characterized by the benefits being smaller than the costs of participation, and their actions may exhibit short-term irrational traits [37,55].…”

“…Given their subjective agency, stakeholders often seek channels to express their demands and advocate for their rights when they experience discontent [29,37]. In most cases, stakeholders first utilize conventional channels to voice their concerns and make appeals [8,44].…”