Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100153
DC FieldValue
dc.titleRisk management in large physical infrastructure investments: The context of seaport infrastructure development and investment
dc.contributor.authorHo, M.W.
dc.contributor.authorHo, K.H.
dc.date.accessioned2013-10-14T05:11:15Z
dc.date.available2013-10-14T05:11:15Z
dc.date.issued2006
dc.identifier.citationHo, M.W.,Ho, K.H. (2006). Risk management in large physical infrastructure investments: The context of seaport infrastructure development and investment. Maritime Economics and Logistics 8 (2) : 140-168. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100153" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100153</a>
dc.identifier.issn13881973
dc.identifier.urihttp://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/46231
dc.description.abstractThe growth of developing countries depends very much on having adequate physical infrastructure to support economic development. As a strategic response, many physical infrastructure investments like seaports are being privatised and highly purpose built. This paper investigates the merits of viable seaport infrastructure investment, typically lumpy and requiring large capital expenditure and long payback period. A key feature of such an infrastructure investment is to structure a defensible risk management strategy to deal with uncertainties. This risk management strategy can provide responsive alternatives to new opportunities. Singapore's Jurong Port is the case study. The original risk management strategy is analysed in 1996, and deploys risk simulation for scenario planning in conjunction with constraint optimisation. This original risk management strategy finds that it is more defensible to configure Jurong Port, and a seaport in general, into the maritime industrial and logistics park (MILP) instead of the higher-margin and purpose-built container terminal strategy, which is inherently volatile (ie uncertain or risky). The planned scenarios and their projections, under the original risk management strategy are then compared with the consequential developments in reality. The results highlight that the sustained viability of Jurong Port in 2004 is attributed to that risk management strategy, originally developed in 1996. © 2006 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd All rights reserved.
dc.description.urihttp://libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100153
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectInfrastructure
dc.subjectLogistics and feasibility
dc.subjectRisk management
dc.subjectSeaport
dc.typeArticle
dc.contributor.departmentREAL ESTATE
dc.description.doi10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100153
dc.description.sourcetitleMaritime Economics and Logistics
dc.description.volume8
dc.description.issue2
dc.description.page140-168
dc.identifier.isiutNOT_IN_WOS
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications

Show simple item record
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.