Optimization of Benefit Allocation in Contracted Water-Saving Projects Based on the Shapley Value Method

Table 8

Core stakeholders’ risk and their weight of CWSP in colleges.

Second index	Index weight	Third grade index	Sources	Index weight	Water-saving service enterprises	Colleges	Financial institutions
Project preparatory stage (A)	0.157	Policy and legal risks A1	[30–32]	0.131	√
		Water-saving market risk A2	[30, 31]	0.166	√
		Assessment risk of water-saving status A3	—	0.252	√	√	√
		Selection risk of water-saving service enterprise A4	—	0.242		√	√
		Contract risk A5	[30–32]	0.209	√	√	√
Project construction stage (B)	0.296	Project financing risk B1	[31–34]	0.237	√		√
		Design and technical risks B2	[32, 34, 35]	0.219	√
		Material and equipment supply risks B3	[34]	0.155	√
		Construction environmental risk B4	[36]	0.130	√
		Construction management risk B5	[5, 32, 34]	0.157	√
		Completion acceptance risk B6	—	0.102	√
Operation management stage (C)	0.266	Operation management risk C1	[5, 31, 32, 34]	0.406	√
		Water-saving benefits to maintain risk C2	[5, 32, 37]	0.381	√
		Force majeure risk C3	[5, 36, 37]	0.213	√
Water-saving volume verification and benefit sharing (D)	0.171	Water-saving verification risk D1	[34]	0.552	√	√	√
		Income distribution risk D2	[30]	0.448	√	√	√
Project handover stage (E)	0.110	Project handover risk E1	—	0.395	√	√
		Water-saving demand changes risk E2	[30, 31]	0.605		√