Fuzzy Analysis of Financial Risk Management Strategies for Sustainable Public–Private Partnership Infrastructure Projects in Ghana

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research contribution intends to deepen a theoretical understanding of financial risks in sustainable investments in PPP infrastructures in developing countries.

The research carried out justifies the efforts undertaken to define a new way to investigate this issue, to identify ways to improve the performance by implementing key strategies, to provide practical recommendations to PPP practitioners, experts and public officers.  

The adopted methodology for the research purpose is based on an accurate and thorough data mining and collection activity, performed by accessing to bibliographic databases, which provided the starting point in designing a survey questionnaire. 

The research sample consists of practitioners and experts on PPP projects in Ghana.

The research defines ultimately an interesting strategic approach and various tools, aimed at mitigating financial risks on public infrastructures in PPP contracts.

The work is original, well structured, scientifically robust and my overall evaluation is very positive.

Author Response

Thank you for the kind comments. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Avoid repeating sentences, as in lines 115-6

You surveyed 334 persons and then reduce the cases to 287, with the sole criteria of avoiding missing data; but this is a cause of bias in the results. But again, you affirm that the original 334 were ‘targeted’ participants contacted by email. There is no valid design of experiment with a random sampling, so the results can only be applied to the 287 cases included. No extrapolation to a broader population can be pursued.

Also you refer to the ‘adequacy of sample size’; avoiding the fact that there is no random sampling,

The inclusion of references 31 and 32 are something difficult to understand: they are included to assess the ‘adequacy’ of sample size: that is, a purely statistical problem. 31 is referred to a Construction journal, and the second to an information technology journal and with authors far away of statisticians professionals who give some recipes some of them included in statistical textbooks. But then formula 144 is applied in an inappropriate context: for Likert scale, that is ordinal variables (in the cited article, there are a reference to this topic, but with a clear error). The sample size calculation is oriented to the estimation of proportions, which is not the case here.

Using some measures, as Bartlett sphericity test is about the correlation matrix of a set of variables; Pearson correlations are obtained on numerical variables; in this case, categorical ordinal variables are used.

In table 1, are all the variables Likert 5-point scales?

In table 2, there are some variables originally numeric (for example, ‘Years of working…?, ‘Participation in PPP projects’. Why have you categorized them, instead of using the full information in the original data? The rest of the variables are either binary or nominal. You analyze the original 23 variables in different groups, and conclude with non-parametric tests that most of them vary along these groups.

In the factor analysis you use principal components with a varimax rotation; the later is applied as a mean to facilitate the interpretation of components, as other types of rotations; the (line 312) ‘popularity’ is surely due as it is the default option in many well-known packages; so this sentence is not appropriate. Then you define four latent variables associated to subgroups of FRM’variables. Are there no relations between these?

About the discussion related to financial risk analysis, you comment that some components are related to some previous papers published. But what are your conclusions? Are they derived from these groups of variables? How this is justified?

Author Response

Please, find the attached document for our responses to Reviewer 2

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting issue, the following  suggestions are offered according to the various sections of the article:

1. Introduction

The study highlights the need for international attention and support to address Ghana's infrastructure challenges, suggesting that leveraging such support could significantly enhance the financial risk management of PPP projects in the country.

2. Literature Review

International best practices in financial risk management for PPP projects should be evaluated for their alignment with Ghana's specific contextual needs, identifying strategies that can be adapted for local implementation to improve project sustainability.

3. Research Methodology

The research methods used must capture the unique socio-economic context of Ghana effectively. Employing a mixed-methods approach could provide a more nuanced understanding of the financial risks associated with PPP projects in the country.

4. Results

The current implementation status of the identified financial risk management strategies in Ghana's PPP projects should be assessed, along with their effectiveness in mitigating financial risks, to inform future project management practices.

5. Discussion

The impact of policy changes on financial risk management strategies for PPP projects in Ghana should be discussed, with policy recommendations made to support the sustainability of these projects in the face of such changes.

6. Practical and Research Implications

The research findings should inform actionable policy guidance for the Ghanaian government and private sector, aiming to enhance the financial risk management framework for PPP projects and ensure their long-term viability.

7. Conclusion and Limitations

Addressing the limitations identified in the study, such as sample size and analytical scope, is crucial for future research. This will improve the robustness and applicability of the findings, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the financial risk management landscape for PPP projects in Ghana.

Ensure that the document is thoroughly proofread for any language and grammatical errors to maintain the professional quality of the writing.

Author Response

Please, find attached document containing our responses to your comments. Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Approaching the topic of risks/results in PPPs on infrastructure with fuzzy logic is relatively new, and this alone merits publication. I am saying "relatively" because what the authors should add is some reference to similar research. Also, while the authors give the number of interviewees, they do not specify the number of projects in which they are involved.  

On clerical errors: Please remove lines 726 - 735 on appendices. Also, in line 501, eliminate the word "Authors", and in line 521 rectify "Bretton".  

Author Response

Thank you for the kind comments. The number of projects has been mentioned in Line 132, kindly check. The clerical errors have also been corrected. 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

It is better than before, but the text formatting still requires review.

Consider revising sections with complex jargon or theoretical explanations to enhance clarity. Using simpler language and more concise explanations could make the concepts more accessible to readers. Engage a professional language editing service, especially one experienced with academic texts, to correct grammatical issues. This step will help to polish the manuscript's language, making it more professional and easier to read.