Unpacking the Influence of Public–private Partnerships on Disaster Resilience: A Comparison of Expert Perspectives

Abstract

Public managers are under increasing pressure to develop and operate physical infrastructure systems that prove resilient in the face of natural disasters. At the same time, fiscal pressures and mounting infrastructure needs are drawing more and more attention to public–private partnerships (PPP) as a mechanism for delivering infrastructure. The research question guiding this study is how can the institutional designs of PPPs influence the potential for improving infrastructure resilience? We examined the perceived relationship between infrastructure resilience and PPPs by conducting and analyzing research interviews with twenty‐four senior infrastructure experts in Washington, DC. The results reflect findings of related privatization research, indicating that market‐based incentives can advance public values such as resilience, but the responsibility for ensuring they do so rests primarily with government. We note key differences in how the infrastructure investment experts and disaster resilience experts view issues in infrastructure management, and provide suggestions for improving public‐private collaboration to improve resilience.

Public-private collaborations in emergency logistics: A framework based on logistical and game-theoretical concepts

“…The idea is that partnerships with firms facilitate the transfer of knowledge and skills on collaborative logistics and supply chain management, leading to efficiency gains in humanitarian logistics (Nurmala et al, 2017). Moreover, PPECs may help to create more resilient infrastructure systems, thereby helping to improve the situation of the population (Boyer, 2019).…”

Developing a resilience-based adaptive co-management framework: public sectors’ insights on the role of tourism

“…Interest in PPPs has grown dramatically in disaster management over the last decade (Boyer, 2019;Chen et al, 2013) because the fragmented social responsibility for developing and implementing disaster policies requires the use of partnership mechanisms (May & Williams, 1998). While there is a broad consensus that governments must assume a leadership role in disaster management, it has become obvious that government agencies are lacking sufficient resources and capabilities.…”

“…Indeed, co-management has exerted a profound impact on resource management, and recent efforts have incorporated the concepts of resilience and well-being as well as integrated ecology, economy, and society (Plummer & Armitage, 2007). Within the tourism literature, co-management refers to sharing in the management of natural resources or protected areas through connecting stakeholders at multiple levels (Berkes, 2007(Berkes, , 2009Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996;Islam, Ruhanen, & Ritchie, 2017, 2018, 2019Jaireth & Borrini, (2007). Co-management of resources in tourism destinations is a pivotal issue in the application of environmental sustainability and appropriate economic development (Halim, 2016;Berkes, George, & Preston, 1991;Graci, 2013;Shoeb-Ur-Rahman et al, 2019).…”

The flip side of the coin: Perils of public–private disaster cooperation

“…Internationally, this dominant discourse about the merits of PPPs in disasters is generally underpinned by assumptions about their financial benefits and necessity, such as the need to reduce reliance upon increasingly ‘shrinking national budgets’ (Lindberg & Sundelius, 2013, p. 1298), coupled with ‘a growing awareness of the financial costs of disasters’ (Linnell, 2013, p. 15). Another main argument is that a high proportion of critical infrastructure is privately owned, and that this increased interdependence makes PPPs attractive, even inevitable (Boyer, 2019; Department of Justice, 2006; Stewart et al, 2009).…”

“…Second, although public–private disaster cooperation can take many forms, with businesses performing roles in all phases of the emergency management cycle (Abou‐Bakr, 2012; Busch & Givens, 2013), previous studies on private sector involvement tend to focus on contractual interactions (Stewart et al, 2009, p. 346) and the mitigation and preparation phase (see, e.g., Boyer, 2019; Chen et al, 2013). Notable exceptions, however, are, for example Abou‐Bakr (2012) and Givens (2020) who address disaster‐oriented PPPs active in the response phase.…”