Next Article in Journal
A Systematic Study on a Customer’s Next-Items Recommendation Techniques
Previous Article in Journal
Collaborative Learning in the Flipped University Classroom: Identifying Team Process Factors
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 12
10.3390/su14127174
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Mapping Studies on Sustainability in the Performance Measurement of Public-Private Partnership Projects: A Systematic Review

by
Isaac Akomea-Frimpong
*,
Xiaohua Jin
and
Robert Osei-Kyei
School of Engineering, Design and Built Environment, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW 2747, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(12), 7174; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127174
Submission received: 21 April 2022 / Revised: 8 June 2022 / Accepted: 8 June 2022 / Published: 11 June 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The integration of sustainable practices into infrastructure projects under the auspices of public-private partnerships (PPPs) is vital in the attainment of United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Since the inception of the SDGs in 2015, the attention of world has been shifting towards more sustainable practices and it is essential that the conventional performance measurement models on PPP projects also adapt to the trend of sustainable practices. Therefore, This study aims at reviewing and operationalising sustainable performance measures for the PPP infrastructure projects. A systematic literature review (SLR) methodology was utilised in this study. The research process began with the search, retrieval and selection of thirty-three (33) journal articles. Thoroughly, the selected articles were contently analysed to form key themes that form the basis of this research’s findings. The outcomes of this review demonstrate twenty-seven (27) most critical sustainable performance criteria of PPP projects such as the lowest project costs, green index, disability-friendly inclusion rate and carbon emission per project among others. Although, the study is limited to few journal articles, it provides theoretical and practical understanding of integration of sustainability in PPPs. Further, it gives a list of relevant research gaps for further studies. This study contributes to the benchmarking and management of sustainable performance assessment of PPP projects.

1. Introduction

Historically, the partnership between the state and the private sector in the delivery of infrastructure projects can be traced back as early as 1600s [1,2]. Evidence suggests that in 1800s, the United Kingdom (UK), United States (US) and France governments delivered turnpikes and water facilities with the financial support of the private sector [3,4]. Fast-forward to the 1990s, the public sector received a massive boost in private funding of mega infrastructure projects when United Kingdom government rebranded and reintroduced this aged-old model in the built environment and termed it as Public Finance Initiative (PFI). PFI is the precursor of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) [5,6] and the model has received wide recognition in other countries aside the United Kingdom in recent times. Globally, PPPs has aided in the construction of numerous projects such as schools, roads, light rail, hospitals, and shopping centres among others [7]. For instance, data from the European Investment Bank (EIB) has shown that 1765 public-private partnership (PPP) contracts were signed in the European Union (EU) from 1990 to 2016, representing a capital value of almost €356 billion [8]. Further evidence from the World Bank and national data shows the growing implementation of PPP to deliver public infrastructure in developing economies to bridge an infrastructural gap amounting to US$1−$1.5 trillion [9,10].
Even though, the aforementioned statistical evidence supports the wide acceptance of PPP arrangements in infrastructure development around the world, there are recent concerns on its long-term sustainable performance [11,12]. The most prominent concerns include the following. First, unexpected external (macro) occurrences such as COVID-19 recession, 2007−2008 recession and a fallout in the financial markets around the world have adverse effects on the sustainability of PPP projects [13]. Second, existing traditional performance assessment measures of PPP projects that heavily rely on the triangle model of time, cost and quality with little emphasis on the key tenets of sustainability practices [14]. Public policies on sustainability have surged since the implementation of United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) from 2015 [15]. UN SDGs demand holistic assessment of activities (including PPP projects) emphasising on social and environmental protection [16]. Nevertheless, the current performance assessment of PPP projects have minimally incorporated sustainable practices. Third, empirical studies on sustainability in PPP performance remain few that needs further investigation and publications. There is inadequate conceptualisation of key elements in integrating sustainability principles into the performance measures of PPP infrastructure in research outlets. Compared to topical issues in the PPP research area such as critical success factors [17], risk management [18] and stakeholder [19], sustainable performance measurement remains less explored. Therefore, this study’s twofold objectives are:
1. To review and identify the key sustainable performance measures of PPP projects,
2. To operationalise the findings, present gaps and provide directions for further research.
The results of this literature review present relevant checklists and gaps for further investigations into the sustainability of the performance of PPPs. In addition, the study provides benchmarks appropriate for project teams in operationalisation and design of performance framework to assess the performance of PPP projects. The remaining sections of the study have overview of sustainability in the performance of PPP projects, the systematic literature review methodology, results and discussions. The study concludes with summary of the results, implications and limitations.

2. Overview of Sustainability in Public-Private Partnership Projects

Brundtland [20] explains sustainability as actions that create development that satisfies the needs of the current generation with appropriate measures to preserve resources for the unborn generations. Conceptually, this explanation establish two key underlying themes. First, it embodies the sustainable practices that promote the well-being of people and meets the basic needs of present society [21]. Second, sustainable measures that embrace technology, social inclusion and green policies to preserve and advance environmental resources for the future [22]. The concept of sustainability has been popularized and the volume of research on it has astronomically increased since the inception of the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015 [23]. The PPP research domain is not exception to the sources of the research outputs springing up. Studies on PPP projects such as Liang and Wang [12] emphasized that the relationship between PPP arrangements and sustainability is attained in the integration of efficiency, technological innovation and social dynamics into the projects. Apart of this, PPPs ensure the achievement of economic development of society and financiers by creating jobs as the project’s lifecycle create an avenue for involvement of stakeholders [24]. PPPs also broaden the opportunities for economic exchanges via the products or services to widen the revenue net and satisfaction of public goods and services. PPPs promote measures that keep the environment and reduce carbon emissions [25]. How PPPs could be a tool to attain sustainable success in the lifecycle of projects remain an important issue [26].
Sustainability of project’s success are realized across the lifecycle of the projects. [27] opined that the success of PPP projects remains important in the global assessment of environmental conditions for infrastructure development. Available metrics to measure environmental-friendly infrastructures under the PPP arrangements include BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method), Green Mark, and green certifications and benchmarks from individual countries [12,27]. Although, the foundational tenets of sustainability are social, economic, and environmental factors, little research within the PPP research area provides an integrative review and operationalisation into the key sustainable performance measures.

3. Research Method

In this study, the research method adopted to search, select and analyse literature to meet the current study’s objectives is systematic literature review (SLR). This method, SLR has been used for similar previous studies in the PPP research domain to assess relevant topics such as critical success factors [17], healthcare [28] and financial risk management [29], among others. In Figure 1, the details of the SLR include:

3.1. Step 1: Search in Academic Databases

The selection of the most appropriate academic databases (search engines) to search for literature was the first priority. In this study, Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) were chosen as the relevant academic databases where studies on sustainable performance measures of PPP projects due to the following reasons. First, the two databases have many scholarly literature serving as a suitable secondary data for academic research [30]. Second, Scopus and WoS have searchable features that make it easy to filter and download literature for systematic literature review [31]. Once the Scopus and WoS have been selected, relevant keywords were identified and keyed into the two search engines. The sustainable performance indicators had keywords such as “sustainable performance” or “sustainable performance indicators”, “sustainability performance criteria”, “environmental, social and governance criteria”, “sustainable performance measures” whiles the public-private partnerships had keywords of “public-private partnership”, “ppp infrastructure projects”, “public-private partnerships”, “Build-Operate-Transfer”, and “Private Finance Initiative”.
The preliminary search results produced 393 documents: 301 from Scopus and 92 from Web of Science. Additionally, the initial results automatically showed the search period from 2003 to 2021. To retrieve the targeted documents, the preliminary outcome was restricted to journal (source type), articles (document type) and English (language). Spontaneously, these restrictions removed 268 documents out of the 393 documents [32,33]. The details of the remaining 125 documents (articles) were retrieved into an excel spreadsheets for further analysis.

3.2. Step 2: Selection of Relevant Articles

The inclusion and exclusion assessment of the 125 was undertaken to select the relevant articles. Three criteria set for this study. (i) Removal of duplicate articles. The duplicate analysis revealed 28 articles that appeared twice in both Scopus and WoS excel files [34]. These duplicates were taken out of the 134 reducing the articles to 97 articles. (ii) Deletion of 51 articles that covered little of this study’s objectives. Articles that were out of scope and objectives of this study with just a mention of a keyword [35]. (iii) Exclusion of 13 articles that were poorly reviewed which were either published in conferences or unranked open access journals [36]. To ensure that all other academic databases are exhausted, additional searches took place in Google Scholar and PubMed but no relevant article was identified. Thus, the final number of articles agreed to be suitable for this study was 33 articles in the light of previous studies that used fewer articles [37,38,39].

3.3. Step 3: Content Analysis

In this last stage of the review, the 33 articles were thoroughly examined and compared within the patterns of the research outcomes. Relevant words, statements and keywords were retrieved from the examination of the content of the articles [40]. The extracted items were coded and the common coding patterns were grouped into themes. The themes were subjected to both qualitative interpretations and quantitative scoring and formulation of metrics to ascertain the sustainable performance indicators. Section 4 presents results of all the analysis.

4. Results and Discussions

4.1. Overview of Selected Articles

4.1.1. Growth in Publication of Articles

There is a surge in publications on the sustainability of performance of PPP projects [41]. Figure 2 demonstrates the annual increment in research outcomes dedicated to establishing the sustainable performance measures of PPP from 2003 to 2021. Publications jumped from one in 2000−2004 and 2005−2009 to four articles in 2010−2014. Exponentially, the articles increased from four articles in the 2010−2014 period to 22 articles in 2015−2019 period. This shows an increment of 275 percent in the publications, a period in which the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) came into effect [23]. Since the SDGs became a prominent policy standpoint around the world, the interests of practitioners, principal partners and researchers in ensuring sustainable performance of PPP projects has increased. Thus, the results underscore the heightened interests to assess and report the sustainable outcomes of PPPs and it is expected that research in this area will grow in future [42].

4.1.2. Distribution of Projects in the Country-of-Origin

The seventeen (17) countries presented in Table 1 are the countries where leading researches on this topic were undertaken. From Figure 3, most investigations into financial performance of PPP projects took place in Australia, UK and China. Although, PPP projects started early in Europe, the concept has gained more prominence in the construction industry in other parts of the world (especially Asia and Pacific region). The analysis showed that a whopping 61.36 percent of the selected articles came from the countries in this region. Europe (UK, Germany, Italy and Netherlands) came second, recording 11.36 percent of studies. On country-by-country basis, Australia (7 articles) recorded the maximum studies. Australia is ranked as a developed market for PPPs, and the model is promoted by both federal and state governments to deliver public facilities and essential services [43]. Australia is followed by China (5 articles) where the concept of Private Finance Initiative (PFI), the precursor of PPP projects originated from [44] and then UK with 3 articles. PPP projects in Australia and UK have come under intense scrutiny from private investors to ascertain the best sustainable practices to maintain existing projects. Thus, investors demand for sustainable practices in areas of governance, environmental protection and reduction of carbon emissions from the activities of construction [45]. Developing PPP markets such as Ghana, China and Vietnam of PPPs are exposed to greater financial risks affecting the achievement of economic sustainability [31]. In reference to the findings in Table 1, most of the studies reported on general PPP projects or multi-faceted mixture of projects. The generic PPP projects represented 26 of the articles whilst road transport was found to be the second most widely studied sector in PPP in relation to financial performance. For instance, [46] assessed the performance of road toll rates of PPP projects. Hospitals, schools and airport recorded one article each on the performance of PPP projects.

4.1.3. Dominant Research Techniques

The fundamental research methodologies utilised in the selected studies include surveys, interviews with expert opinions, case studies and key performance indicators, discounted cash flow models such as net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR). Table 2 shows that survey technique dominated the performance analysis of sustainable performance of PPPs recording 12 articles followed by case studies with seven articles. Telephone and face-to-face interviews were used to obtain relevant information to establish the performance of PPP projects from project managers and all stakeholders related to the projects. Four articles used Value for Money (VfM) as an assessment tool on the sustainable performance of PPPs [47,48]. Two articles used balance scorecard together with Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to assesses the internal and external view about the performance of PPP projects [49]. Lastly, one articles utilised discounted cash flow techniques to analyse the expected cash flows from lifecycle of the projects.

4.1.4. Citation of Articles

The citation analysis aims to reveal the number of times the 33 articles were cited in other research works. Moreover, the citation of the articles show the impacts the selected publications are contributing to the sustainable performance measurement of PPPs. In addition, where articles are published (journals) have influences on the acceptance of an article among the scientific research community and practices. Thus, Table 3 demonstrates 13 topmost cited articles with at least 50 citations as at the end of 2021 in influential journals. Yuan, et al. [50], Yuan, Wang, Skibniewski and Li [10] and Yuan et al. (2010) [51] drew inferences of key performance indicators to assess the quality and efficiency of sustainable performance of PPPs. These studies were published in highly ranked journals in the construction management field: Journal of Management in Engineering, and Construction Management and Economics. According to Liu, et al. [52], low financial service charges, fixed and low interest rate financing, currency fluctuations and tariffs and toll adjustments on the PPP project are commonly listed as the benchmark to assess the sustainability of PPP projects. It is evident from the results that performance of PPPs are widely ascertained differently. Mladenovic, et al. [49] and Osei-Kyei, et al. [53] mentioned that concession fees and expected environmental costs influence the financial performance of PPPs because it affects the demands of users in perceiving the social and ecological value of the project.

4.2. Critical Sustainable Performance Criteria of PPP Projects

Table 4 demonstrates the dominant performance measures of PPP projects. Drawing lessons from the selected articles, the PPP projects have diverse criteria due to the expectations of stakeholders [60]. The public partner pursues value for money in constructing and managing public facilities [61]. Such a pursuit reduces the expenses taxpayers bear and expenditure within allocated budget [62] and reduce cost overruns. The expectation of the private investor is the maximization of profits and recouping of invested capital from the project [63]. The general public (or users) of the PPP infrastructure demand affordable fees and improvement in economic well-being (in the form of employment and living standards) [10]. Profitability is attained within the lowest project costs and that establishes excess revenue that add to reserve stock of a project. Profit becomes entrenched when there are drastic cost efficiency strategies [64]. Cost efficiency is the reduction of excessive cost overruns of the projects [65]. Cost overruns escalates legal actions, fines and compensations [66,67].
Another indicator of a performing PPP project is the drastic reduction of operational expenditure. Maintenance and operation expenses during the operation of the projects are essential in arriving at the profits that connects to the operations of the project [46]. The extension of the concession period with effective management of maintenance costs and administrative expenses. Additionally, the fluctuations in macroeconomic conditions trigger the performance of PPP projects [68]. Project managers institute hedging mechanisms against these constant changes to protect expected cash inflows [69]. Staying resolute against bankruptcy during economic recessions ensures strong financial support for the project from the start to the decommissioning stage without insolvency [70]. Aside, the insolvency of projects, the principal partners and the project management company also protect the project against bankruptcy of the key financiers that can put the project at risk [71]. In an unlikely event that this occurs, the steering committee of the PPP project together with the enacted laws of the project [72] must analyse and mitigate the severity of the bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is further mitigated by the minimization of financial risks which improves the cash inflows obtained from the project by cutting down the high interest rates and market risks [46]. Deliberate financial control measures must be designed and directed towards reducing the project’s financial losses [66]. For example, robust financial risk management techniques such as hedging and minimum guarantee could help address this challenge. Assessment and fair allocation of the financial risks ensuing between the partners [73] reduce the project’s specific and systematic financial risks [74,75].
As a significant financial measure, spending within a PPP project’s budget [76] is essential to contribute to the reduction of unexpected expenses at the construction stage, and minimize the overall lifecycle costs of the project. Although, budget is just one part in the determination of success of a project, a number of failures of PPP projects have been linked to inaccurate estimation and prediction of revenues and costs [26]. Spending within the targeted budget boosts financial interest of investors in similar projects in future. Moreover, adherence to the project’s budget ensures value for money. Value for money to users sustains the long-term financial arrangements between partners. Prior to the awarding of the contract through the lifecycle of the project, financial relationships through negotiations and renewal of contracts are necessary to keep the project on track [77]. Stakeholder’s interests in the project is understood to be collective in nature to prevent the entire stakeholders from pursuing selfish interest of the few, generating chaos and reprisals from opinion leaders and the community [56].
Regular and timely accountability of financial transparency safeguards trade delivery of service to the populace in exchange for extreme and wasteful expenses of project managers [47]. In dealing with the investments from partners, project managers must emphasize the fairness and accuracy of the amount of investments spent [78]. This is a measure of good stewardship of the capital entrusted to them. Project managers and workers refrain from misuse of funds and profligate spending when regular reviews and discussions ensue at the project-level meetings. The steering committee of the project monitor the transparency and timely reportage of the financial activities on the project [79]. The demands of stakeholders (users) of the project are met when the user fees, parking permits and tolls are affordable. Affordability drives people to patronage the project. Potentially, paying less for a good product or service increases the revenues derived from the project [46].
Finally, the project success of the PPPs could be determined by favourability of the social and environmental measures related to capital investment into the project [80]. A net value of the social net and ecological balance is an indication of anticipated stream of achievement within the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) [73]. The social and environmental performance constructs of SDGs propels infrastructure projects to align to the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [81]. The goal of the SDGs is to include climate change, green principles, and diversity policies in constructing public infrastructures. The 17 SDGs goals promotes sustainable performance and development where each goal is measured accordingly to ensure long-term success [82].

4.3. Conceptual Framework with Operationalisation of Performance Measures of PPPs

The integrated theoretical model in Figure 3 sets the readiness of the assessment of the performance of PPP projects based on established multidimensional theories with operationalisation constructs in Table 5. The proposed conceptualisation of the model has its bedrock in assessment on project dependent on classical theories of market-based view theory, resource-based view theory, strategy-structure theory, triple bottom line and user value-based theory. The underlying constructs of the theories forms the basis of formation of economic, environmental, social and governmental criteria of sustainable performance of PPPs. Based on the market-based view, the external forces of demand and supply in relation to economic conditions and market externalities establish and drive the formation of cash inflow criteria underlying the success of PPP projects [11,83]. Branding and pricing of projects are consistent investments into the investments driven by environmental and macroeconomic factors such as favourable weather conditions and interest rates leading to better outcomes of the project. Yurdakul, Kamaşak and Öztürk [11] revealed the specific macroeconomic-induced criteria of project success with Sharma [84] arguing that the success of public infrastructure projects are not defined only within the context of internal factors of projects. Du, Leten and Vanhaverbeke [83] synchronized the market-based positioning of a project to the attraction of investments for projects. Also, the market positioning and profitability of PPP projects has been widely affected negatively by external factor of Coronavirus pandemic across the world leading to delays in completion of projects and increased financial losses due to prolonged lockdowns and increased health costs [85].
Resource-based view (RBV) theories embrace and use increasingly competitive heterogeneity of outcomes of projects [86]. RBV premises that organisational capabilities of competing interests of resources by diverse stakeholders on the investment returns of the PPP projects differ significantly. based on the premise that close competitors differ in their capabilities and resources [87]. In line with the RBV theory, the commitment of project teams (or project management firms) are demonstrated by the amount of resources and value placed on a project to be innovate and provide the prerequisite financial support to ensure increased cash inflows from the project [46]. The criteria for the performance of PPP projects are heavily influenced by the positive outcomes of economies of scale for investment of the project. The size of the project affects the reduction of costs and increase the financial returns of the projects. RBV proposes the influence of risks in the determination of the profitability of the projects. The internal activities and transactions of the project team and the overall project lifecycle drive the cash outflow [58]. Triple bottom line promotes the reportage of social, environmental and economic factors relating to the project.
Strategy and structure theories establish the defined practical benchmarks for the assessment of the PPP projects influenced by the social processes and policies of project management firms as well as conditions stemming from the industry in which the project is executed [44]. The impact of the firm-specific factors in relation to the project form the basis of the design of the financial outcome benchmarks of the project. Industrial standards are strongly required in the areas of health and cybersecurity as well as sensitivity areas of the economy to execute PPP projects. Slater [88] propounded the value-based theory of the user of a project or product built and released to satisfy the needs of the users of project covering social and environmental standards. The main intent of the theory is realized when the demands of the project in question are subscribed and provided to cover the financial costs [89]. Attaining better financial outcome for all stakeholders especially the private investors could stimulate and attract huge capital investment to execute similar future projects.
Table
Table 5. Operationalisation and measurement benchmarks of performance criteria of PPPs.
Table 5. Operationalisation and measurement benchmarks of performance criteria of PPPs.
CodePerformance CriteriaOperationalisation & Measurement of VariablesReferences
Environmental criteria:
PEF8Energy consumption rateEnergy usage per project. The energy consumption per units of infrastructure or kilometers (roads).Bakar, et al. [90]
PEF13Waste reduced (Zero waste index) The amount of wastes and disposables from the project. The accumulation of wastes in PPP project divided by the total amount of wastes within a project site. Zaman [91], Lu, et al. [92]
PEF19Green IndexProjects meets LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), Green Building Label (GBL) and all green project certifications.Heckert and Rosan [93]
PEF23Resilience scaleInfrastructure is resolute against disasters, floods and force majeure. Measurement and rating on the scale of strongly resilient, resilient, poorly resilient and not resilient. Ampratwum, et al. [94], Chopra, et al. [95]
PEF24Carbon emissions per projectThe quantum of pollutants released from the project. Total amount of pollution per project. Huang, et al. [96], Hoeft, et al. [97]
PEF26Preservation of flora and faunaRequirements on protecting flora and fauna are met. Adherence to legal regulations on environmental protection. Widman [98]
PEF27Optimization of project resourcesEfficient usage of resources on a project. Measured in the realization of maximum benefits from resourcesZheng, et al. [99]
Social criteria:
PEF5Quality scoreConforming to the construction industry’s standards on quality. The yardstick of scale from 0 to 500 based on ISO 9001 standards. 0 to 150 is low quality, 151 to 250 is medium and 251 to 500 is high quality. Agarchand and Laishram [100]
PEF6Customer/user satisfactionRatings of customer/user satisfaction from 1 to 5. 1 = not satisfied, 2 = low, 3 = neutral, 4 = satisfied, 5 = highly satisfiedRohman, et al. [101]
PEF10Public perception indexThe perceptions of the public about the outcomes of the project to enrichen the cultural and social values of society. An index factor of 0 to 0.25—Poor, 0.26–0.5 it needs improvement, >0.5 acceptable. Shin, et al. [102]
PEF25Disability friendly consideration Accessibility of disable-friendly features to the project such as the usage of wheelchairs. Yes =1 if disable people can access a PPP project, No = 0 if no features are available to assist disable persons. Goel, et al. [103]
Economic criteria:
PEF1Lowest project costs Minimum recorded costs of the project from the start to the end (lifecycle stages). Measured as “Actual costs project incurred” < “expected project costs budgeted”.Osei-Kyei and Chan [104]
PEF3Rate of return of investmentThe maximisation of capital investment into the project for key financiers. The calculation is Net profit (revenue) divided by the accumulated capital invested in the project.Zheng, Xu, He, Fang and Zhang [22]
PEF7Affordable charges/tolls Dummy variable, 1= if majority of the users can afford its charges, then it is affordable, 0= if little or users stop using the project because it is unaffordable and expensive.Liu, et al. [105]
PEF9Solvency of the project Ability of project managers to meet all the liabilities of the project both short and long-term. Total liabilities divided by total assets with the acceptance ratio between 0 to 1, but it is problematic if it is more than 1. Zhang [106]
PEF11Profitable (increased net revenue)Optimization of revenues from the project. The measurement is the total accumulated revenue exceeding the total costs. Engel, Fischer and Galetovic [24]
PEF12Adherence to project budgetProject finances spent within budget. Excess expenses above budgets are duly justified.Koops, Bosch-Rekveldt, Coman, Hertogh and Bakker [56]
PEF14Value for money (VFM)Judicious use of resources and project outcomes either meets or exceeds targets in terms of efficiency, economy and effectiveness.Cheung, et al. [107]
PEF16Positive Net Present value (NPV)Maximum net cash flows from a project. Total discounted cash inflows exceeds total discounted cash outflows. Liyanage and Villalba-Romero [46]
PEF17Improved local economy with jobs Creation of jobs and economic growth from the project.Sharma [84]
PEF20A debt service coverage ratioThe capacity to pay loan facilities, interests and other related debts of the project promptly. It is calculated as total debts divided by capital invested into the projectIyer and Balamurugan [61]
PEF21Modified Internal rate of return (MIRR)The positive cash flows from a project from a capitalization of the cost of capital or interest rate.Kurniawan, Mudjanarko and Ogunlana [79]
Governance criteria:
PEF2Meet deadlines (Time)Dummy variable, 1 = if project deadline (schedule date) is met, and 0 = if a project fails to meet a targeted time.Lin and Lu [108]
PEF4Project’s specification met A set of targets on the size, style, functionality and systems of the project. 3 = meet the specifications, 2 = somehow meet the specifications, 1 = poorly meet the specifications, 0 = does not meet the specifications. Mota and Moreira [109]
PEF15Transparency and accountability indexFair and regular reportage of the activities of the project. Garrido, et al. [110]
PEF18Innovation and technology MatrixAttainment of technology and innovation in a project. Dummy, 1 = if technology and innovative services or products have been recorded, 0 = vice versa. Battisti and Brem [111]
PEF22Bureaucracy and bankruptcy ratingRates the bureaucratic processes resulting in corrupt practices and set the project for bankruptcy. 1—0–10 cases are acceptable, 2 = 11–20 case s= manageable, 3 = 21 and above are not acceptable.Hu, et al. [112]

4.4. Knowledge Gaps and Future Research Agenda

Despite the revealing results obtained from analysing the previous studies about the performance of PPP projects, project managers and researchers must address some limitations in literature (see Figure 4).
1. First, little attention has been focused on climate change policies and climate action in PPP projects. Inadequate available data to assess impacts of fluctuations in climatic conditions on the performance of PPP projects contributes to this phenomenon. Although, there is an increasing demand from policymakers, financiers and users of PPP project managers to take action and include climate change in the design of the performance criteria of PPP projects, minimal studies and project reports mention it [25]. Aside these demands, global pacts on climate change such as 2015 Paris Climate Agreement and 2021 Glasgow COP 26 Agreement urges construction projects to be built in the light of cutting down carbon emissions to zero [113]. However, the management of climate change has not been given the needed attention and support. Therefore, it is a relevant area that industry players and project managers needs to build a holistic database to analyse climate-based performance of PPP projects.
2. The longevity and success of a project is the desire of all stakeholders [114]. However, PPP projects experience setbacks due to unforeseen events such as floods, COVID-19 pandemic and fires that draw back the progress of the project. This has necessitated the inclusion of resilience, diversity and inclusion measures to bulwark the project from attacks and accessible to people with different backgrounds [24,115]. Available project reports suggest that this situation of resilience must be managed properly to propel the performance of the projects but limited research has been conducted on it in the PPP arrangements [94]. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to work with project managers to develop robust models as countermeasure tool to resolve this problem and increase the outcomes of PPPs.
3. Although, some studies exist on greening the PPP projects, less emphasis has been placed on green performance benchmarks of the outcomes of the projects. The existing green benchmarks are mostly on buildings with either no or confusing measures on projects such as roads, railways and services executed within the confines of the PPP arrangements [116]. How the ecological footprint and preservation of resources impact the performance of PPP projects have not been studied. In this regard, further studies on the performance of PPP projects must concentrate on analysing the green models and performance of other PPP projects aside buildings.
4. Another gap identified on the performance of PPPs is limited consideration of circularity of projects. The attention of the world is shifting from linear models of constructing projects to more circular models with the aim of cutting down waste [117]. Even though, the PPP concept has become widely acceptable in the delivery of public projects, the current performance measurement models on them correspond to the linearity of the project starting from pre-construction stage to the disposal of the project with little emphasis on what happens next after the disposal or decommission stage [118]. Moreover, the few studies that applied circular economy models to PPP projects concentrated on only waste management not the entirety of the project and reusing the outcomes of the project [119]. This calls for research and development of holistic models to integrate circular economy models into the full lifecycle of the projects.

5. Conclusions, Implications for Practice and Future Studies

In summary, the performance of PPP models in public infrastructural development is still essential topic in all sectors. The analysis and benchmarking within existing performance models of PPP projects needs a review in the light of UN SDGs. Systematically, this literature review identified 27 sustainable performance criteria of PPP projects from 33 relevant journal articles. The results reveal that reduction of costs, good project governance, environmental and green benchmarks and social diversity are the key performance criteria of PPPs.
The results set up measurement criteria and modelling to optimize the outcomes of PPP projects that are imperative to the performance targets of project managers. The findings of the study are useful guidelines in developing sustainable performance measures for PPP projects to meet the expectations of multiple stakeholders. The expectations of PPP infrastructure projects to protect the environment and consider the disabled persons have become paramount in recent discussions in the construction industry. Lessons from the review give credence to these discussions and provide a assessment performance measurement framework for managerial decision-making on the performance of PPP projects. The results encourage project managers to transition and develop sustainable performance measurement for in PPP projects. The bedrock of this transition is relevant information which is the driving force in good decision making and development of appropriate PPP project management policies. The findings are suitable source of information in achieving the transition from traditional performance measures to sustainable performance measures in PPP projects. PPP projects are complex and distinctive in the financing arrangements with different partners, phases of the project and outcomes. Thus, the results of the study will coherent sustainable performance policies that facilitate long-term success with the focus on every facet of the PPP project. As a reference point, the outcomes of this study could facilitate further investigations and propositions of appropriate performance standards for PPP projects within the UN SDGs. Even though, the concept of PPP in construction project delivery has been around for decades now, it is evident from the literature review that few studies have focused on integrating sustainability principles in measuring the performance of PPP projects. Future research can build upon the findings of this study and establish specific sustainable performance measures to suit PPP projects in specific sectors such as roads, buildings, railways etc. From this study, future research will develop and expand the conceptual model proposed in this study, incorporate more relevant variables with testing and validation of the interrelationships between them.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, data curation, writing—original draft preparation, Isaac Akomea-Frimpong; writing—review and editing, I.A.-F., X.J. and R.O.-K.; supervision, X.J. and R.O.-K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The APC was funded by Western Sydney University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

This article is part of a PhD thesis project of the corresponding author. Authors are grateful to Western Sydney University for the support to the research project. Reviewers and editors of this journal also deserve commendation for providing relevant comments that improved the quality of this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Publication details of selected articles.
Table A1. Publication details of selected articles.
Reference Number Article (Author & Year)
1Liu, et al. [120]
2Kumar, et al. [121]
3Akomea-Frimpong, et al. [114]
4Kim and Thuc [122]
5Osei-Kyei and Chan [123]
6Hossain, Guest and Smith [42]
7Liang and Wang [12]
8Osei-Kyei and Chan [104]
9Liu, et al. [124]
10Osei-Kyei and Chan [125]
11Osei-Kyei and Chan [126]
12Liu, et al. [127]
13Mohamad, et al. [128]
14Osei-Kyei and Chan [129]
15Osei-Kyei, Chan, Javed and Ameyaw [53]
16Osei-Kyei and Chan [57]
17Liu J., Love P.E.D., Sing M.C.P., Smith J., Matthews J. Liu, Love, Sing, Smith and Matthews [105]
18Cappellaro and Ricci [130]
19Koops, Bosch-Rekveldt, Coman, Hertogh and Bakker [56]
20Liu, Love, Smith, Matthews and Sing [58]
21Cuthbert and Magni [131]
22Liyanage and Villalba-Romero [46]
23Liu, Love, Davis, Smith and Regan [52]
24Liu, Love, Davis, Smith and Regan [52]
25Xiong, et al. [132]
26Liu, Love, Smith, Regan and Palaneeswaran [63]
27Mladenovic, Vajdic, Wündsch and Temeljotov-Salaj [49]
28Zhou, Keivani and Kurul [59]
29Yuan, Wang, Skibniewski and Li [10]
30Yuan, Skibniewski, Li and Zheng [51]
31Yuan, Zeng, Skibniewski and Li [50]
32Shaoul [55]
33Ismail, et al. [133]

References

  1. Cheung, E.; Chan, A.P.C.; Kajewski, S. The researcher’s perspective on procuring public works projects. Struct. Surv. 2010, 28, 300–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Grimsey, D.; Lewis, M. Public Private Partnerships: The Worldwide Revolution in Infrastructure Provision and Project Finance; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bogart, D. The transport revolution in industrialising Britain. In The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Britain; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; Volume 1, pp. 368–391. [Google Scholar]
  4. Lee, C.; Miller, J.S. Conditions contributing to the attitudes for toll facilities in the United States with a specific focus on Virginia. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2016, 43, 920–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Almarri, K.; Boussabaine, H. The Influence of Critical Success Factors on Value for Money Viability Analysis in Public–Private Partnership Projects. Proj. Manag. J. 2017, 48, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rahman, H.Z.; Miraj, P.; Andreas, A. Exploring Public–Private Partnership Scheme in Operation and Maintenance Stage of Railway Project. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tan, J.; Zhao, J.Z. The Rise of Public–Private Partnerships in China: An Effective Financing Approach for Infrastructure Investment? Public Adm. Rev. 2019, 79, 514–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cheah, S.L.Y.; Yoneyama, S.; Ho, Y.P. Performance management of public–private collaboration in innovation. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2019, 28, 563–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. UN. Closing the Infrastructure Gap. 2020. Available online: https://developmentfinance.un.org/closing-the-infrastructure-gap (accessed on 20 January 2022).
  10. Yuan, J.; Wang, C.; Skibniewski, M.J.; Li, Q. Developing key performance indicators for public-private partnership projects: Questionnaire survey and analysis. J. Manag. Eng. 2012, 28, 252–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yurdakul, H.; Kamaşak, R.; Öztürk, T.Y. Macroeconomic drivers of Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects in low income and developing countries: A panel data analysis. Borsa Istanb. Rev. 2021, 22, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Liang, Y.; Wang, H. Sustainable Performance Measurements for Public–Private Partnership Projects: Empirical Evidence from China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Castelblanco, G.; Guevara, J.; Salazar, J. Remedies to the PPP crisis in the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons from the 2008 global financial crisis. J. Manag. Eng. 2022, 38, 04022017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Saeed, A.M.; Duffield, C.; Hui, F.K.P. An enhanced framework for assessing the operational performance of public-private partnership school projects. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2018, 8, 194–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yu, Y.; Osei-Kyei, R.; Chan, A.P.C.; Chen, C.; Martek, I. Review of social responsibility factors for sustainable development in public–private partnerships. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 26, 515–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cheng, Z.; Wang, H.; Xiong, W.; Zhu, D.; Cheng, L. Public–private partnership as a driver of sustainable development: Toward a conceptual framework of sustainability-oriented PPP. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 1043–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Osei-Kyei, R.; Chan, A.P. Review of studies on the Critical Success Factors for Public–Private Partnership (PPP) projects from 1990 to 2013. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 1335–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zou, P.X.; Wang, S.; Fang, D. A life-cycle risk management framework for PPP infrastructure projects. J. Financ. Manag. Prop. Constr. 2008, 13, 123–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dansoh, A.; Frimpong, S.; Ampratwum, G.; Dennis Oppong, G.; Osei-Kyei, R. Exploring the role of traditional authorities in managing the public as stakeholders on PPP projects: A case study. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2020, 20, 628–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Brundtland, G.H. Our common future—Call for action. Environ. Conserv. 1987, 14, 291–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Amovic, G.; Maksimovic, R.; Buncic, S. Critical Success Factors for Sustainable Public-Private Partnership (PPP) in Transition Conditions: An Empirical Study in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zheng, S.; Xu, K.; He, Q.; Fang, S.; Zhang, L. Investigating the sustainability performance of ppp-type infrastructure projects: A case of China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Owusu-Manu, D.G.; Adjei, T.K.; Sackey, D.M.; Edwards, D.J.; Hosseini, R.M. Mainstreaming sustainable development goals in Ghana’s energy sector within the framework of public–private partnerships: Challenges, opportunities and strategies. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2020, 19, 605–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Engel, E.M.; Fischer, R.D.; Galetovic, A. The economics of infrastructure finance: Public-private partnerships versus public provision. EIB Pap. 2010, 15, 40–69. [Google Scholar]
  25. Buso, M.; Stenger, A. Public-private partnerships as a policy response to climate change. Energy Policy 2018, 119, 487–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Vaslavskiy, Y.; Vaslavskaya, I. Infrastructure Public–Private Partnership Projects: Budget Consolidation Policy in Russia and Government Expenditures’ Efficiency Increase. In Modeling Economic Growth in Contemporary Russia; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  27. Litman, T. Developing indicators for comprehensive and sustainable transport planning. Transp. Res. Rec. 2007, 2017, 10–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Torchia, M.; Calabrò, A.; Morner, M. Public–private partnerships in the health care sector: A systematic review of the literature. Public Manag. Rev. 2015, 17, 236–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Akomea-Frimpong, I.; Jin, X.; Osei-Kyei, R. A holistic review of research studies on financial risk management in public–private partnership projects. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2021, 28, 2549–2569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Darko, A.; Zhang, C.; Chan, A.P. Drivers for green building: A review of empirical studies. Habitat Int. 2017, 60, 34–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cui, C.; Liu, Y.; Hope, A.; Wang, J. Review of studies on the public–private partnerships (PPP) for infrastructure projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018, 36, 773–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Akomea-Frimpong, I.; Kukah, A.S.; Jin, X.; Osei-Kyei, R.; Pariafsai, F. Green finance for green buildings: A systematic review and conceptual foundation. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 356, 131869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kukah, A.S.; Akomea-Frimpong, I.; Jin, X.; Osei-Kyei, R. Emotional intelligence (EI) research in the construction industry: A review and future directions. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2021. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mhatre, P.; Panchal, R.; Singh, A.; Bibyan, S. A systematic literature review on the circular economy initiatives in the European Union. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 26, 187–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Alteneiji, K.; Alkass, S.; Abu Dabous, S. A review of critical success factors for public-private partnerships in affordable housing. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 2020, 11, 1192–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Dwan, K.; Gamble, C.; Williamson, P.R.; Kirkham, J.J. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias—An updated review. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e66844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Akomea-Frimpong, I.; Jin, X.; Osei-Kyei, R.; Tumpa, R.J. A critical review of public–private partnerships in the COVID-19 pandemic: Key themes and future research agenda. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Alteneiji, K.; Alkass, S.; Abu Dabous, S. Critical success factors for public-private partnerships in affordable housing in the United Arab Emirates. Int. J. Hous. Mark. Anal. 2020, 13, 753–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chan, A.P.; Nwaogu, J.M.; Naslund, J.A. Mental ill-health risk factors in the construction industry: Systematic review. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020, 146, 04020004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bista, S.; Hollander, J.B.; Situ, M. A content analysis of transportation planning documents in Toronto and Montreal. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2021, 9, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zhai, Z.; Shan, M.; Darko, A.; Le, Y. Visualizing the Knowledge Domain of Project Governance: A Scientometric Review. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2020, 2020, 6813043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hossain, M.; Guest, R.; Smith, C. Performance indicators of public private partnership in Bangladesh. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2019, 68, 46–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Raisbeck, P.; Duffield, C.; Xu, M. Comparative performance of PPPs and traditional procurement in Australia. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2010, 28, 345–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nayak, B.S. Reconceptualising Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) in global public policy. World J. Entrep. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 15, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wang, L.; Zhang, P.; Zhang, P.; Li, R.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, Y. A systematic approach for public-private partnership projects CSFs evaluation. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2018, 25, 1127–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Liyanage, C.; Villalba-Romero, F. Measuring success of PPP transport projects: A cross-case analysis of toll roads. Transp. Rev. 2015, 35, 140–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Koppenjan, J.F.M.; Enserink, B. Public-private partnerships in urban infrastructures: Reconciling private sector participation and sustainability. Public Adm. Rev. 2009, 69, 284–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Papajohn, D.; Cui, Q.; Bayraktar, M.E. Public-private partnerships in US transportation: Research overview and a path forward. J. Manag. Eng. 2011, 27, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Roumboutsos, A.; Mladenovic, G.; Vajdic, N.; Wündsch, B.; Temeljotov-Salaj, A. Use of key performance indicators for PPP transport projects to meet stakeholders’ performance objectives. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2013, 3, 228–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Yuan, J.; Zeng, A.Y.; Skibniewski, M.J.; Li, Q. Selection of performance objectives and key performance indicators in public–private partnership projects to achieve value for money. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2009, 27, 253–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Yuan, J.; Skibniewski, M.J.; Li, Q.; Zheng, L. Performance objectives selection model in public-private partnership projects based on the perspective of stakeholders. J. Manag. Eng. 2010, 26, 89–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Liu, J.; Love, P.E.; Davis, P.R.; Smith, J.; Regan, M. Conceptual framework for the performance measurement of public-private partnerships. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2015, 21, 04014023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Osei-Kyei, R.; Chan, A.P.; Javed, A.A.; Ameyaw, E.E. Critical success criteria for public-private partnership projects: International experts’ opinion. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 2017, 21, 87–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Love, P.E.; Liu, J.; Matthews, J.; Sing, C.-P.; Smith, J. Future proofing PPPs: Life-cycle performance measurement and building information modelling. Autom. Constr. 2015, 56, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Shaoul, J. A financial analysis of the National Air Traffic Services PPP. Public Money Manag. 2003, 23, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Koops, L.; Bosch-Rekveldt, M.; Coman, L.; Hertogh, M.; Bakker, H. Identifying perspectives of public project managers on project success: Comparing viewpoints of managers from five countries in North-West Europe. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 874–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Osei-Kyei, R.; Chan, A.P. Developing a project success index for public–private partnership projects in developing countries. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2017, 23, 04017028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Liu, J.; Love, P.E.; Smith, J.; Matthews, J.; Sing, C.-P. Praxis of performance measurement in public-private partnerships: Moving beyond the iron triangle. J. Manag. Eng. 2016, 32, 04016004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhou, L.; Keivani, R.; Kurul, E. Sustainability performance measurement framework for PFI projects in the UK. J. Financ. Manag. Prop. Constr. 2013, 18, 232–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Eadie, R.; Millar, P.; Toner, L. Public private partnerships, reevaluating value for money. Int. J. Procure. Manag. 2013, 6, 152–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Iyer, K.; Balamurugan, R. Evaluation of private sector participation models in highway infrastructure in India—A system dynamics approach. J. Adv. Manag. Res. 2006, 3, 44–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Flyvbjerg, B.; Ansar, A.; Budzier, A.; Buhl, S.; Cantarelli, C.; Garbuio, M.; Glenting, C.; Holm, M.S.; Lovallo, D.; Lunn, D. Five things you should know about cost overrun. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2018, 118, 174–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Liu, J.; Love, P.E.; Smith, J.; Regan, M.; Palaneeswaran, E. Review of performance measurement: Implications for public–private partnerships. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2015, 5, 35–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lawther, W.C.; Martin, L. Availability payments and key performance indicators: Challenges for effective implementation of performance management systems in transportation public-private partnerships. Public Work. Manag. Policy 2014, 19, 219–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bassioni, H.A.; Price, A.D.; Hassan, T.M. Performance measurement in construction. J. Manag. Eng. 2004, 20, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Duy Nguyen, L.; Ogunlana, S.O.; Thi Xuan Lan, D. A study on project success factors in large construction projects in Vietnam. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2004, 11, 404–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kušljić, D.; Marenjak, S. Critical PPP/PFI project success criteria for public sector clients. Teh. Vjesn. 2013, 20, 947–954. [Google Scholar]
  68. Zhang, X. Concessionaire’s financial capability in developing build-operate-transfer type infrastructure projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2005, 131, 1054–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sundararajan, S.K.; Tseng, C.L. Managing Project Performance Risks under Uncertainty: Using a Dynamic Capital Structure Approach in Infrastructure Project Financing. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 04017046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Cheung, E.; Chan, A.P.; Kajewski, S. Factors contributing to successful public private partnership projects: Comparing Hong Kong with Australia and the United Kingdom. J. Facil. Manag. 2012, 10, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Xiong, W.; Zhao, X.; Yuan, J.-F.; Luo, S. Ex post risk management in public-private partnership infrastructure projects. Proj. Manag. J. 2017, 48, 76–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Bolaños, L.; Gifford, J.; Kweun, J.Y. Bankruptcy policy and surface transportation public-private partnerships: A comparative analysis of the US and Europe. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2019, 7, 185–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kumar, L.; Jindal, A.; Velaga, N.R. Financial risk assessment and modelling of PPP based Indian highway infrastructure projects. Transp. Policy 2018, 62, 2–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Battisti, F.; Campo, O. A methodology for determining the profitability index of real estate initiatives involving public-private partnerships. A case study: The integrated intervention programs in Rome. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Fernandes, C.; Oliveira Cruz, C.; Moura, F. Ex post evaluation of PPP government-led renegotiations: Impacts on the financing of road infrastructure. Eng. Econ. 2019, 64, 116–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Villalba-Romero, F.; Liyanage, C.; Roumboutsos, A. Sustainable PPPs: A comparative approach for road infrastructure. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2015, 3, 243–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wojewnik-Filipkowska, A.; Trojanowski, D. Principles of public-private partnership financing—Polish experience. J. Prop. Invest. Financ. 2013, 31, 329–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Liu, J.; Love, P.E.; Davis, P.R.; Smith, J.; Regan, M. Performance measurement framework in PPP projects. In Proceedings of the P3BooK International Conference on PPP Body of Knowledge, Preston, UK, 18–20 March 2013; University of Central Lancashire: Lancashire, UK, 2013; pp. 55–64. [Google Scholar]
  79. Kurniawan, F.; Mudjanarko, S.W.; Ogunlana, S. Best practice for financial models of PPP projects. Procedia Eng. 2015, 125, 124–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Demirag, I.; Khadaroo, I.; Stapleton, P.; Stevenson, C. Risks and the financing of PPP: Perspectives from the financiers. Br. Account. Rev. 2011, 43, 294–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Deng, B.C.; Zhou, D.J.; Zhao, J.C.; Yin, Y.L.; Li, X.Y. Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation of the Critical Success Factors for the Sustainability of Public Private Partnership Projects in China. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Xiong, W.; Chen, B.; Wang, H.M.; Zhu, D.J. Public-private partnerships as a governance response to sustainable urbanization: Lessons from China. Habitat Int. 2020, 95, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Du, J.; Leten, B.; Vanhaverbeke, W. Managing open innovation projects with science-based and market-based partners. Res. Policy 2014, 43, 828–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Sharma, C. Determinants of PPP in infrastructure in developing economies. Transform. Gov. People Process. Policy 2012, 6, 149–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Kudtarkar, S.G. Resetting PPP in Infrastructure Model in India Post-COVID-19 Pandemic. Indian Econ. J. 2020, 68, 365–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Lehnert, M.; Linhart, A.; Röglinger, M. Value-based process project portfolio management: Integrated planning of BPM capability development and process improvement. Bus. Res. 2016, 9, 377–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Alejandro, T.B.; Töytäri, P.; Alejandro, T.B.; Parvinen, P.; Ollila, I.; Rosendahl, N. Bridging the theory to application gap in value-based selling. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2011, 26, 493–502. [Google Scholar]
  88. Slater, S.F. Developing a customer value-based theory of the firm. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1997, 25, 162–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Woodall, T. Conceptualising ‘value for the customer’: An attributional, structural and dispositional analysis. Acad. Mark. Sci. Rev. 2003, 12, 1–42. [Google Scholar]
  90. Bakar, N.N.A.; Hassan, M.Y.; Abdullah, H.; Rahman, H.A.; Abdullah, M.P.; Hussin, F.; Bandi, M. Energy efficiency index as an indicator for measuring building energy performance: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 44, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zaman, A.U. Measuring waste management performance using the ‘Zero Waste Index’: The case of Adelaide, Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 66, 407–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Lu, W.; Chen, X.; Peng, Y.; Shen, L. Benchmarking construction waste management performance using big data. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 105, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Heckert, M.; Rosan, C.D. Developing a green infrastructure equity index to promote equity planning. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 19, 263–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Ampratwum, G.; Tam, V.W.; Osei-Kyei, R. Critical analysis of risks factors in using public-private partnership in building critical infrastructure resilience: A systematic review. Constr. Innov. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Chopra, S.S.; Dillon, T.; Bilec, M.M.; Khanna, V. A network-based framework for assessing infrastructure resilience: A case study of the London metro system. J. R. Soc. Interface 2016, 13, 20160113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Huang, L.; Krigsvoll, G.; Johansen, F.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, X. Carbon emission of global construction sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 1906–1916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Hoeft, M.; Pieper, M.; Eriksson, K.; Bargstädt, H.-J. Toward Life Cycle Sustainability in Infrastructure: The Role of Automation and Robotics in PPP Projects. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Widman, U. Exploring the Role of Public-Private Partnerships in Forest Protection. Sustainability 2016, 8, 496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Zheng, X.; Liu, Y.; Jiang, J.; Thomas, L.M.; Su, N. Predicting the litigation outcome of PPP project disputes between public authority and private partner using an ensemble model. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2021, 22, 320–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Agarchand, N.; Laishram, B. Sustainable infrastructure development challenges through PPP procurement process Indian perspective. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2017, 10, 642–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Rohman, M.A.; Doloi, H.; Heywood, C.A. Success criteria of toll road projects from a community societal perspective. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2017, 7, 32–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Shin, N.; Yoo, J.S.; Kwon, I.W.G. Fostering Trust and Commitment in Complex Project Networks through Dedicated Investment in Partnership Management. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Goel, A.; Ganesh, L.; Kaur, A. Social sustainability considerations in construction project feasibility study: A stakeholder salience perspective. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 27, 1429–1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Osei-Kyei, R.; Chan, A.P.C. Evaluating the project success index of public-private partnership projects in Hong Kong: The case of the Cross Harbour Tunnel. Constr. Innov. 2018, 18, 371–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Liu, J.; Love, P.E.; Sing, M.C.; Smith, J.; Matthews, J. PPP social infrastructure procurement: Examining the feasibility of a lifecycle performance measurement framework. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2017, 23, 04016041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Zhang, X. Financial viability analysis and capital structure optimization in privatized public infrastructure projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2005, 131, 656–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Cheung, E.; Chan, A.P.; Kajewski, S. Enhancing value for money in public private partnership projects. J. Financ. Manag. Prop. Constr. 2009, 14, 7–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Lin, H.-W.; Lu, H.-F. Evaluating the BOT project of sport facility: An application of fuzzy net present value method. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 2013, 30, 220–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Mota, J.A.; Moreira, A. The importance of non-financial determinants on public–private partnerships in Europe. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 1563–1575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Garrido, L.; Gomez, J.; de los Ángeles Baeza, M.; Vassallo, J.M. Is EU financial support enhancing the economic performance of PPP projects? An empirical analysis on the case of spanish road infrastructure. Transp. Policy 2017, 56, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Battisti, S.; Brem, A. Digital entrepreneurs in technology-based spinoffs: An analysis of hybrid value creation in retail public–private partnerships to tackle showrooming. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2020, 36, 1780–1792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Hu, Z.; Chen, S.; Zhang, X. Value for money and its influential factors: An empirical study of PPP projects in Japan. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2014, 4, 166–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Dwivedi, Y.K.; Hughes, L.; Kar, A.K.; Baabdullah, A.M.; Grover, P.; Abbas, R.; Andreini, D.; Abumoghli, I.; Barlette, Y.; Bunker, D. Climate change and COP26: Are digital technologies and information management part of the problem or the solution? An editorial reflection and call to action. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2022, 63, 102456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Akomea-Frimpong, I.; Jin, X.; Osei-Kyei, R. Managing financial risks to improve financial success of public—Private partnership projects: A theoretical framework. J. Facil. Manag. 2021. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. De Schepper, S.; Haezendonck, E.; Dooms, M. Understanding pre-contractual transaction costs for Public–Private Partnership infrastructure projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 932–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Yang, X.; Zhang, J.; Shen, G.Q.; Yan, Y. Incentives for green retrofits: An evolutionary game analysis on Public-Private-Partnership reconstruction of buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 232, 1076–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Korhonen, J.; Nuur, C.; Feldmann, A.; Birkie, S.E. Circular economy as an essentially contested concept. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 175, 544–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Charef, R.; Morel, J.C.; Rakhshan, K. Barriers to Implementing the Circular Economy in the Construction Industry: A Critical Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Hart, J.; Adams, K.; Giesekam, J.; Tingley, D.D.; Pomponi, F. Barriers and drivers in a circular economy: The case of the built environment. In Proceedings of the 26th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, LCE 2019, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 7–9 May 2019; pp. 619–624. [Google Scholar]
  120. Liu, J.; Guo, Y.; Martek, I.; Chen, C.; Tian, J. A phase-oriented evaluation framework for China’s PPP projects. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Kumar, A.; Srivastava, V.; Tabash, M.I.; Chawda, D. Profitability determinants of infrastructure public private partnerships (PPPs): Empirical evidence from Indian data. J. Financ. Manag. Prop. Constr. 2021, 27, 91–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Kim, S.-Y.; Thuc, L.D. Sustainable location selection for investing in public–private partnership infrastructure projects: From a developing country’s perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Osei-Kyei, R.; Chan, A.P. Model for predicting the success of public–private partnership infrastructure projects in developing countries: A case of Ghana. Arch. Eng. Des. 2019, 15, 213–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Liu, H.J.; Love, P.E.; Smith, J.; Sing, M.C.; Matthews, J. Evaluation of public–private partnerships: A life-cycle performance prism for ensuring value for money. Environ. Plan. C Pol. Space 2018, 36, 1133–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Osei-Kyei, R.; Chan, A.P. Public sector’s perspective on implementing public–private partnership (PPP) policy in Ghana and Hong Kong. J. Facil. Manag. 2018, 16, 175–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Osei-Kyei, R.; Chan, A.P. Stakeholders’ perspectives on the success criteria for public-private partnership projects. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 2018, 22, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Liu, H.J.; Love, P.E.; Smith, J.; Irani, Z.; Hajli, N.; Sing, M.C. From design to operations: A process management life-cycle performance measurement system for Public-Private Partnerships. Prod. Plan. Control 2018, 29, 68–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Mohamad, R.; Ismail, S.; Said, J.M. Performance objectives of public private partnership implementation in Malaysia: Perception of key players. J. Asia Bus. Stud. 2018, 12, 17–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Osei-Kyei, R.; Chan, A.P. Comparative analysis of the success criteria for public–private partnership projects in Ghana and Hong Kong. Proj. Manag. J. 2017, 48, 80–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Cappellaro, G.; Ricci, A. PPPs in health and social services: A performance measurement perspective. Public Money Manag. 2017, 37, 417–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Cuthbert, J.R.; Magni, C.A. Measuring the inadequacy of IRR in PFI schemes using profitability index and AIRR. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 179, 130–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Xiong, W.; Yuan, J.-F.; Li, Q.; Skibniewski, M.J. Performance objective-based dynamic adjustment model to balance the stakeholders’ satisfaction in PPP projects. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2015, 21, 539–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Ismail, S.; Mohamad, R.; Said, J.M. Performance indicators for lifecycle process of public private partnership (PPP) projects in Malaysia. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 07174 g001 550
Figure 1. Overall research method map.
Figure 1. Overall research method map.
Sustainability 14 07174 g001
Sustainability 14 07174 g002 550
Figure 2. Number of relevant publication(s) from 2003 to 2021.
Figure 2. Number of relevant publication(s) from 2003 to 2021.
Sustainability 14 07174 g002
Sustainability 14 07174 g003 550
Figure 3. Conceptualizing the review findings.
Figure 3. Conceptualizing the review findings.
Sustainability 14 07174 g003
Sustainability 14 07174 g004 550
Figure 4. Areas that need more research in the sustainable performance measurement of PPPs.
Figure 4. Areas that need more research in the sustainable performance measurement of PPPs.
Sustainability 14 07174 g004
Table
Table 1. Matrix of projects and research origins.
Table 1. Matrix of projects and research origins.
CountryArticle(s)Distribution of Project(s)
Generic (*)RoadsHospitalAirportSchoolsSports Facility
Australia76— — — 1 —
Multiple nations651 — — — —
China54 — — — — 1
UK32 — — 1 — —
Hong Kong211 — — — —
Ghana22 — — — — —
Malaysia22 — — — — —
Italy1 — — 1 — — —
India11 — — — — —
Netherlands11 — — — — —
Bangladesh11 — — — — —
Vietnam11 — — — — —
Germany1 — 1 — — — —
Total332631111
Note (*): Generic refers to a mixture of two or more projects in an article.
Table
Table 2. Commonly used research techniques in sustainable performance of PPP research.
Table 2. Commonly used research techniques in sustainable performance of PPP research.
Technique Article(s)Percent (%)
Survey1237
Case study721
Interviews515
Value-for-Money (VfM)412
Balanced Scorecard 26
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)26
Discounted Cash flow models (NPV, IRR)13
Table
Table 3. Ranking of the most cited publications.
Table 3. Ranking of the most cited publications.
No.ArticleSource (Journal)Impact Score as at 2021
H-Index of JournalArticle Citations
1Yuan, Zeng, Skibniewski and Li [50]Construction Management and Economics94372
2Yuan, Wang, Skibniewski and Li [10]Journal of Management in Engineering70149
3Liu, Love, Davis, Smith and Regan [52]Journal of Infrastructure Systems67138
4Yuan, et al. [51]Journal of Management in Engineering70129
5Mladenovic, Vajdic, Wündsch and Temeljotov-Salaj [49]Built Environment Project and Asset Management21126
6Osei-Kyei, Chan, Javed and Ameyaw [53]International Journal of Strategic Property Management30114
7Love, et al. [54]Automation in Construction121114
8Liyanage and Villalba-Romero [46]Transport Reviews82100
9Shaoul [55]Public Money and Management4877
10Koops, et al. [56]International Journal of Project Management14457
11Osei-Kyei and Chan [57]Journal of Infrastructure Systems6756
12Liu, et al. [58]Journal of Management in Engineering7054
13Zhou, et al. [59]Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction2250
Table
Table 4. Sustainable performance measures of PPP projects.
Table 4. Sustainable performance measures of PPP projects.
CodePerformance CriteriaReferences (Citations in the Appendix A)
PEF1Lowest project costs [1,2,4,5,7,8,9,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,22,23,24,25,27,29,30,31,32]
PEF2Meet deadlines (Time)[1,2,4,5,6,7,10,11,14,16,17,17,18,20,21,22,26,27,28,28,30,31,32]
PEF3Rate of return of investment[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,12,13,14,15,17,17,18,19,20,21,23,24,32]
PEF4Project’s specification met [1,2,4,6,7,8,9,11,13,15,17,18,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,31,32]
PEF5Quality score[1,3,5,7,8,10,12,13,16,17,17,22,25,26,27,28,30,32]
PEF6Customer/user satisfaction[6,7,8,9,12,13,15,17,18,19,20,24,26,27,29,30,32]
PEF7Affordable charges/tolls of projects for users[1,2,4,6,7,8,9,13,15,17,21,22,23,29,30]
PEF8Energy consumption rate[5,6,7,8,9,12,14,15,18,19,22,24,26,32]
PEF9Solvency of the project [6,7,8,9,13,14,15,16,19,24,27,29,30]
PEF10Public perception index[5,6,7,8,9,12,14,15,18,19,22,24,26,32]
PEF11Profitability (increased net revenue)[1,2,6,7,8,9,13,15,18,19,24,27,31]
PEF12Adherence to project budget[1,4,5,6,7,8,9,13,15,17,18,19,21]
PEF13Reduction of waste (Zero waste index) [2,5,6,7,8,10,11,15,18,19,21,22]
PEF14Value-for-money (VFM)[1,2,10,12,15,17,17,22,27,29,30]
PEF15Transparency and accountability index[5,6,7,8,9,15,18,19,32]
PEF16Positive Net Present value (NPV)[1,4,5,7,13,15,17,20,32]
PEF17Improved local economy with jobs [6,7,8,9,15,18,19,20]
PEF18Innovation and technology metrics[6,7,8,9,15,24,27,30]
PEF19Green Index[6,7,8,9,15,18,19,31]
PEF20Debt service coverage ratio[1,2,4,5,11,25,30]
PEF21Modified Internal rate of return (MIRR)[1,4,11,15,20,32]
PEF22Resolute against bankruptcy[2,5,15,17,22,29]
PEF23Resilience scale[2,5,27]
PEF24Carbon emissions per project[16,27]
PEF25Disability-friendly[1,17]
PEF26Preservation of flora and fauna[4,31]
PEF27Optimization of project resources [20,24]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Akomea-Frimpong, I.; Jin, X.; Osei-Kyei, R. Mapping Studies on Sustainability in the Performance Measurement of Public-Private Partnership Projects: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7174. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127174

AMA Style

Akomea-Frimpong I, Jin X, Osei-Kyei R. Mapping Studies on Sustainability in the Performance Measurement of Public-Private Partnership Projects: A Systematic Review. Sustainability. 2022; 14(12):7174. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127174

Chicago/Turabian Style

Akomea-Frimpong, Isaac, Xiaohua Jin, and Robert Osei-Kyei. 2022. "Mapping Studies on Sustainability in the Performance Measurement of Public-Private Partnership Projects: A Systematic Review" Sustainability 14, no. 12: 7174. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127174

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop