Abstract

China has implemented a large number of mega infrastructure projects (MIPs) over the past few
decades. External stakeholders’ expectations is crucial for achieving the success of the
completion of MIPs. Which group of external stakeholder impact the MIPs’ performance the
most? To answer this question, this research study identifies the major external stakeholder
groups and their common expectations towards the MIPs in China and develops a theoretical
framework to assess the importance level of external stakeholders.

The research study collected 356 primary data from members working in the Chinese
construction industry to test the hypothesized relationship between external stakeholders’
expectation and project overall performance. Data were analyzed through SPSS software to
provide the empirical evidence of significant.

This study confirms the positive correlation between performance of mega infrastructure project
and expectations from the government stakeholder, public stakeholder and local community
stakeholder. The results further indicate that China. Project managers (PMs) must understand
stakeholder possibilities and challenges, satisfy social obligations, create mutual objectives,
employ appropriate strategies, and improve stakeholder satisfaction in order to become effective
executives.

The study provides insights and enhances understanding for project management team on how
external stakeholder expectation impact when implementing the Mega Infra-Structure
Construction Projects and for other researchers on the value of studying the expectations of
internal stakeholders in the implementation of MICPs in China.
1 Chapter One: Introduction

1.1 Overview
This chapter describes the background of the topic in which we are explaining: Megaa-structure
Construction Projects and external stakeholders; research significance describing the importance
of our research for top project management, literature, and stakeholders; goals or aims of the
research on which the foundation of the paper lies, and research scope or limitations which can
drive the future research paths.

1.2 Research introduction and background

Sun & Zhang (2011) and The Federal Highway Administration of the United States (2007)
define the word “megaproject” as the extremely large-scale projects that cost more than US $500
million and take many years to complete. Jaafari (2004) and Miller & Lessard (2000) define
“megaproject ” as the project that is consist with multiple projects which have the strategically-
aligned goal. Based on these definitions, a megaproject often involves various stakeholders
which lead to an even more complex stakeholder management. Considering stakeholders have
power to be either a threat or a benefit to a construction project’s success (Stefan & Anne,
2005 ), at the same time, megaprojects are becoming more prevalent with global infrastructure as
the McKinsey Global Institute (2016) estimated the spending on megaprojects is going to be
reached to US $3.3 trillion for the period from 2016 to 2030. Moreover, Jiang et al., (2018) and
Guangdong Wu et al., (2020) indicate that these large-scale developments have also been fast
growing in China because of the rapid development in China’s social-economic and Chinese
urbanization in the past few decades. Therefore, concerns focusing on stakeholder management
in megaprojects has been rising in the last decade (Maddaloni & Davis, 2017) because a better
stakeholder management can improve the success chance of megaprojects (Francesco & Kate,
2017).

According to Mddaloni & Davis (2017), many existing stakeholder management studies appear
to either focusing on internal stakeholders management as they are identified as the primary
stakeholders that has the most direct connections and significant impacts to the project ; or only
focusing on improving project performance through a holistic view to manage both primary and
secondary stakeholders. However, falling to address external stakeholders expectations may lead
to a failure. A recent example from China is the completion date of the Hong Kong Express Rail
had delayed for two years to 2017 when the government and project owner did not concern about
local residents expectations (Li, Ng & Skitmore, 2012a, 2012b). The Hallandsas construction
railway tunnel project in southern Sweden is another example of a project that did not finish on
time and had overrun its budget due to the negligence of external stakeholders concerns (Olander
& Atkin, 2009). Therefore, this research is going to study how external stakeholder influence
megaprojects performance in Chinese MIPs, and to be more specific, to assess what extent does
the expectations of three major groups of external stakeholder (the government authorities, the
general public, the affected local communities) influence the success of mega infrastructure
projects (MIPs) in China.

1.3 Research significance

1.3.1 To Project Management Team

Provides analyses of vast information that are useful to enable projects managers to understand
external stakeholders relevant, their involvement, expectations, and associated impacts to the
performance of the project.

1.3.2 To the Existing Literature

Fills the knowledge gap that existing in current literature mentioned from Mehmet E, Ibrahim Y
& Tahir C (2020) and (Jing et al., 2010): a more systematic and comprehensive study of
(external) stakeholders management needs to be future developed as the expectations and factors
that affecting the project performance from external stakeholders in construction industry is
scattered.

1.3.3 To Stakeholders
Provides construction project stakeholders a way to find an enlightenment to identify their roles
that can spur developments, accountability, environmental sustainability and the general
completion of the project.
1.4 Research aims and objectives
Main Objective:

To assess what extent does the expectations of external stakeholder influence the performance of
mega infrastructure projects (MIPs) in China.

Sub objectives:
 identify the common external stakeholders in MIPs
 identify the common expectations of external stakeholder in MIPs
 evaluate the influences of identified expectations on the MIPs success based on
survey result in China
 analyse the relationship between external stakeholder expectations and MIPs
success by conducting an empirical research into Chinese MIPs
 provide recommendations to project management team based on findings from
this research study

1.5 Research questions

 Who are the most common external stakeholders engaged in such MIPs?
 What are the major expectations that external stakeholders
contribute(positively) /bring (negatively) to the MIPs during the project lifecycle?
 Which party of external stakeholder’s expectation result in the most intense level
of interaction and impact to the success of Chinese MIPs among other involved external
stakeholders?

1.6 Research scope

This research identified external stakeholders in Chinese Mega Infra-Structure Construction

Projects(MICPs) and assessed how their expectations impact the project implementation process
to rank their significance in external stakeholder management in the construction industry.

1.7 Thesis structure

The paper has to discuss the expectations of external stakeholders in managing the Mega-
infrastructure programs in four chapters. First it discusses the introduction then conduct a review
on literature and then comes the methodology part. The discussion of results of findings then
gives the clear conclusions for the research problem.

2 Chapter two: Literature Review

2.1 Importance of (external) stakeholder management in the construction industry

The definition of stakeholders was first introduced into management domain in the 1960s by the
Stanford Research Institute in the United States (Xiaoling Z, Thomas N & Martin S, 2017; 2006;
Freeman, 1984) and had attained more attention since the mid-1980s from Freeman (1984, p.46)
by reintroducing the concept of stakeholders as: “any group or individual who can affect, or is
affected by, the achievement of organization’s objectives”. Later, Donaldson & Preston (1995)
identified the stakeholders in an organization and they further described how interest of these
groups of people can be managed. In like manner, stakeholders have separate levels, investment
type, and interest. For successful project completion, the project team must find stakeholders and
manage their influence to the project and find out their demand and expectation (Metar, 2021).
This brings about complexity in the project concerning the issues the stakeholders are
involved (Aaltonen & Kujala, 2010).

The development of stakeholder theory facilitated people to consider the importance of other
parties that also involved in the projects such as local communities, political groups, government
and non-government organizations, customers, social institutions and environmentalists.
Ketokivi and Mahoney (2016) outlined that the stakeholder theory has an objective to enable
project managers to develop in-depth understanding of stakeholders and to strategically manage
their involvement and influences. The stakeholder theory forms part of the modern management
mechanisms that has guided the policies and applications of strategic management methods
(Ketokivi & Joseph, 2020). In recent years, as shown in figure-1, the external stakeholder has
been attaining more attention in the construction industry as there are many scholars have
realized that the involvement of external stakeholder is also critical to project outcomes and
sucess (Maddaloni & Davis, 2017) due to their intensive involvement in such complex large-
scale construction projects (Amadi, Carrillo & Tuuli, 2018). It is thus clear to state that previous
related literatures bring out the importance of external stakeholder management concept in the
construction industry.

Figure-1 recognized stakeholder focus in the previous literature developed by Maddaloni & Davis, 2017.

2.2 Identifying project external stakeholders in the construction industry

In stakeholder management research, previous literatures show that there are various models can
be used to classify stakeholders that involved in construction projects. Cleland (1999) introduced
the idea of primary and secondary stakeholders, and this model can be applied in many
industries. The primary stakeholders are described by Crane and Ruebottom (2011) to a group of
people that assume direct connection regarding economic importance to the project, and
secondary stakeholders are a group of individuals that influence the activities of the project but
do not have a direct connection in regards to the economic influences. However, this research
study will adopt the model that generally classify construction-related stakeholders into internal
and external stakeholders from Winch & Bonke (2002) and Atkin & Skitmore (2008). Within the
context of this paper, internal stakeholders are those members that have contractual relationship
with the project including project owners, financial sponsors, project management teams,
contractors, subcontractors and suppliers, etc., (Manowong & Ogunlana, 2009) while external
stakeholders are the members outside of the organization but affected by the project (Winch &
Bonke, 2002) including local and national authorities of government, local communities, non-
government organizations and end users etc.

In order to assess the expectations of our target group which is external stakeholders, this study
will firstly classify external stakeholders into three major categories: the Government Authorities
(regulators, local government authorities, and national government authorities), the General
Public (end users, environmentalists, and mass media ) and the Affected Local Communities
(land owner, community groups, and social institutions) in line with Cleland (1988) and Gan &
Li (2012). The three general external stakeholder groups that this study will evaluate in Chinese
megaprojects are summarized in Figure-2.

Megaproject

Internal External
stakeholders stakeholders

Affected
Government General
local
authorities: public:
community:
Regulators, local end users,
land owner,
government environme
community
authorities, national ntalists,
groups,
government mass
local social
authorities. media
institutions

Figure-2 Construction external stakeholders, adapted from Cleland (1999), Olander and Atkin (2009),
Ezeabasili et al (2015).

2.3 Impacts of expectations of external stakeholders in MIPs’ success

The initiation of a construction projects brings many influences especially on megaprojects,
because the large scale of projects will involve a lot of investment on the resources to bring the
project to live (Yang et al., 2018). These influences including the wellbeing of the local
residents, the job opportunities, the quality of life, the pollutions (Roufechaei et al, 2014; Leigh
& Neill, 2011), and the project will be seen as a form of government spending investment to
boost the local or even national economy growth (Mok, Shen & Yang, 2015). Therefore, depends
on different role that each type of external stakeholder are taking, they will have different
expectations towards the MIPs. As almost all projects will have a specific schedule, budget and
quality constraints (Westerveld, 2003; Wang & Huang, 2006), this research study will use the
project success criteria that based on the traditional golden triangle as the standard to assess the
relationship between project overall performance and impacts from external stakeholders’
expectation.

Expectations of external stakeholders in construction projects take several forms including their
demands, interests, beliefs, project goals, values and benefits (Lukes, 2005; Zhang & El-Gohary,
2016). Based on the study from Roufechaei et al (2014), this research study will category
external stakeholder expectations in three major dimensions, they are: economic dimension,
environmental dimension, and social dimension. House prices, life-cycle costs, reconstruction,
innovation expenditures, and profitability are all part of economic aspect. Renewables, material,
energy effectiveness, ecosystems, environmental considerations, and pollutions are all part of the
environmental dimension. Eventually, the social aspect includes life quality, residence safety and
health, logistics, and ease of access of facilities.

2.3.1 Impacts of Government authorities’ expectations on MIPs performance

Most MIPs in China were permitted and conducted by the Chinese government which means
most Chinese MIPs are initiated and supervised by the Chinese central government (Zeng et al.,
2015). As a result, these governmental stakeholders plays a critical role on MIPs’ performance.
We can drive the following hypothesis:
H1: Expectations of Government Authorities exert a significant impact on construction project
performance.

The local government are usually in charge of using public money, land, and making policies to
develop the local area. The government authorities are therefore expect the upcoming project
would allocate the public resources appropriately and generate substantial benefits to the area
(Creighton, 1999). For example, the government expects the megaproject will attract more local
business activities once it complete, these activities increase the local taxation and therefore can
eventually increase economic growth (EI-Gohary et al, 2006). According to Gan & Li (2012),
the government party ranked the second highest important level in economic aspect among all
other 12 stakeholders in Chinese construction projects in their research study. We can drive the
following hypothesis:
H 1.1) Expectations of Government Authorities in Economic dimension exert a significant
impact on construction project performance.

The government have responsibilities to oversees environment conditions during construction.

Construction process pollutes land while using chemicals and generate a large amount of
construction waste especially in MIPs, the government representatives are therefore expect
construction developers assess how the projects would control harmful waste and ensure
efficiency in construction waste management (Creighton, 1999). As a result, Environmental
Impact Assessment is usually required at the initial planning stages of construction projects
(Chan & Oppong, 2017). For example, the government will develop environmental policy plans
and set environmental standards for contractors and project participants (Blaauw & Priemus,
2000). Besides, environmentally-friendly behaviors including green construction and ecological
balance during the construction lifecycle is also expected (Zeng et al., 2015). The research result
of stakeholder’s important level that based on Gan & Li in 2012 shows the government
department is the only stakeholder that ranked as “Highly” important stakeholder in
environmental dimension which means government concerns about environment is extremely
important. We can drive the following hypothesis:
H 1.2) Expectations of Government Authorities in Environmental dimension exert a significant
impact on construction project performance.
Although government pursuits on the current efficiency and benefits of MIPs, they also concern
about whether the megaproject would meet future needs, construction processes therefore need
to foresee projects’ life that can bring more values in the future. For instance, De Neufille et al.
(2008) brings an idea that a suitable structure of the project should be able to accommodate extra
spaces for future expansion. Besides, the government authorities will giving support when such
large-scale projects would help to build the city’s reputation and identity of certain locations as it
will attract more tourism (Chan & Oppong, 2017). During the construction process, as the
megaproject takes intensive land and time, government will expect appropriate safety
management and urgent accident response from construction developers (El-Gohary, Osman &
El-Diraby, 2006). Government was the group that rated to have “High” importance level and
ranked at 1st place in social dimension from Gan & Li’s study (2012). We can drive the following
hypothesis:
H 1.3) Expectations of Government Authorities in Social dimension exert a significant on
construction project performance.

2.3.2 Impacts of General publics’ expectations on MIPs performance

General public is defined by Freemam (1984) as “any group of individuals who can affect or is
affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives”. Within this context, it is the group
of related people who are outside the government and affected local communities. They are the
group who care for the economic, social, and environmental performance of MIPs. We can drive
the following hypothesis:
H2: Expectations of General Public exert a significant impact on construction project
performance.

The public concerns about long-term value of construction projects as major projects are funded
by public money that includes taxation, exploration of local natural resources, or loans from
other institutions (Chan & Oppong, 2017). It is crucial for construction developers to understand
general public’s focuses on benefits and values of MIPs. Those benefits include improving living
standards, helping underprivileged communities, and improving local employment opportunities
(Hill & Bowen, 1997; Zeng et al., 2005). Although general public ranked at 12 th important in
economic dimension based on the research study from Gan & Li (2012), the group were still
recorded have “High-Medium” importance level. We can drive the following hypothesis:
H 2.1) Expectations of General Public in Economic dimension exert a significant on
construction project performance.

The MIPs consume a large amount of natural resources, which often destructs biodiversity and
harm natural habitats of plants and animals (Zeng et al., 2015). According to Wang et al., (2010),
the waste that produced by construction works take about 40% of the total solid waste generation
in China. For the public, MIPs developers provide plans which can save energy and protect the
nature during construction such as conserving forest or reducing residential units is necessary,
and these protections are more expected in developing countries for long-term energy
conservation (Tam et al., 2009). Besides, El-Gohary, Osman & El-Diraby (2006) stated that the
end users of such projects expect cleaner and more comfortable environment while using these
facilities. The study from Gan & Li (2012) had showed the party of general public concerns the
environmental issues that come from Chinese construction works are at the 3 rd place among all
other 12 parties. We can drive the following hypothesis:
H 2.2) Expectations of General Public in Environmental dimension exert a significant impact
on construction project performance.

In the social dimension, a successful MIP assist people to socialize and satisfy with the
infrastructure. Public concerns in social aspect include social equity, recognizing different
stakeholders’ status, and transparent project information (Feige, Wallbaum & Krank, 2011) as
corruption can threat the quality and safety standards of infrastructures which is used by the
public every day (Zeng et al., 2015). Moreover, the public stakeholders will be expecting to have
a safe and spectacular design as it builds up the overall well-being of future generation. The
public rated as “High-Medium” important and ranked at 3 rd place in social aspect through Gan
&Li ‘s study on role of project stakeholders. We can drive the following hypothesis:
H 2.3) Expectations of General Public in Social dimension exert a significant on construction
project performance.
2.3.3 Impacts of Affected local communities’ expectations on MIPs performance

According to Zeng et al., (2015), local community is the group that affected by MIPs directly,
they are the residence which face problems like immigration and demolition, etc., and they
would be the project’s direct victims if any pollutions or safety accidents happen. On the other
side, they could be the beneficiaries who gain an improvement in their living circumstances and
income from the project (Zeng et al., 2015). Therefore, local community that around construction
projects also have powers to influence the progress with political and non-political actions, yet
they are least liable (Chan & Oppong, 2017) as the research study based on Gan & Li (2012)
shows local community department plays an relatively low level of importance compares to
other project stakeholders (which ranked at 10th in economic dimension, 6th in environment
dimension, and 7th in social dimension out of total of 13 types of stakeholders). However, we
can still drive the following hypothesis for this research study:
H3: Expectations of General Public exert a significant impact on construction project
performance.

It is critical for the project management to consider expectations form local community as
megaprojects are often large enough to cover extensive areas which involve problems such as
land acquisition and relocation,. etc (Tang, Wong & Lau, 2008). When a project affects local
community, appropriate monetary compensation or settlement policies might be necessary
(Fincher, 1991). Using local resources and substitutes to benefit local businesses would also
convince affected local community to welcome construction projects (Almahmoud & Doloi,
2015). Furthermore, for local community, the economic value of expectation form MIPs is
expected to increase their properties and price of local real estate (Mostafa & El-Gohary, 2015).
We can drive the following hypothesis:
H 3.1) Expectations of Affected Local Communities in Economic dimension exert a significant
impact on construction project performance.

Similar to other groups of stakeholders, the public have concerns on environmental issues, this
brings their expectations on conserving environment and protecting natural resources from
project developers. Local communities are directly affected if projects cause air, water, noise and
light pollutions (Zhao et al., 2012). The local communities therefore expect the local authorities
establish guidance and mitigation measures to project management team in order to decrease
negative effect to local communities (Yang, Wang & Jin, 2014). We can drive the following
hypothesis:
H 3.2) Expectations of Affected Local Communities in Environmental dimension exert a
significant impact on construction project performance.

Local community will expect neighborhood improvement and for projects to reflect its unique
local characteristics from spectacular designs of MIPs (Zeng, et al., 2015). And local
communities concerns may arise when project construction work lead to congestion of
transportation (Tang, Wong & Lau, 2008). Furthermore, as society reflects its history and
culture, community stakeholders’ attention on keeping its heritage and culture could be another
anticipated expectation of MIPs (Li, Ng & Skitmore, 2013) especially in countries or cities
which with long history like China. We can drive the following hypothesis:
H 3.3) Expectations of Affected Local Communities in Social dimension exert a significant
impact on construction project performance.

2.5 Literature gaps

2.6 Framework and hypotheses

The overall review of stakeholder management emphasizes the importance of external

stakeholders in construction industry which the project management must be considered to
ensure construction performance. The review further categorized external stakeholders into three
major groups as government, public and local community and has identified their expectations in
economic, environmental and social dimensions. As the expectations from each group of
stakeholders has possibility to impact the performance of MIPs in ways include delaying the
project complementation date, exceeding the budget and missing project technical standard, the
following table summarized the main expectations that are vital for ensuring MIPs’ success.
Expectations of Key references
External Stakeholders

The government authorities

Economic dimension Appropriation use of public funds and resources (Creighton, 1999).
Local substantial economy growth (EI-Gohary et al., 2016).
Environment dimension Effective construction waste management (Creighton, 1999).
Environmentally-friendly behaviors (Zeng et al., 2015).

Social dimension Developmental flexibility of future changing demand (Tanaka,

2005).
How the initiative reflect the city’s individuality and reputation
(Chan & Oppong, 2017).
Safety management during construction process (El-Gohary,
Osman & El-Diraby, 2006).

The general public

Economic dimension The suggested MIP’s value in terms of money and living standard
(Hill & Bowen, 1997).
Career opportunities (Zeng et al., 2015).
Environment dimension Local natural habitat and biodiversity preservation (Zeng et al.,
2015).
The hygienic practices and cleanliness of facilities (El-Gohary,
Osman & El-Diraby, 2006).
Social dimension Community cohesion (Feige, Wallbaum & Krank, 2001; Zeng et
al., 2015).
Project information transparency (Zeng et al., 2015).
The affected local communities
Economic dimension Suitable compensation and settlement policy for impacted
characteristics (Fincher, 1991).
Substitutes benefit to affected local business (Almahmoud & Doloi,
2015).
Value improvement of local real estate and assets (Mostafa & El-
Gohary, 2015).
Environment dimension Preservation of land and natural resources (Zeng et al., 2015).
Mitigation and protection techniques of air, water, noise and light
pollution (Zhao et al., 2012).

Social dimension Improvement in neighborhood quality and interest (Zeng et al.,

2015).
Appropriate and anticipated traffic plan (Tang, Wong & Lau,
2008).
Preservation of the cultural and historical heritage (Li, Ng &
Skitmore, 2013).
Table1 – key external stakeholders expectations
1 Dependent Variable:
Construction project performance

9 Independent Variables:
Expectations of Government Authorities in Economic dimension
Expectations of Government Authorities in Social dimension
Expectations of Government Authorities in Environmental dimension

Expectations of General Public in Economic dimension

Expectations of General Public in Social dimension
Expectations of General Public in Environmental dimension

Expectations of Affected Local Communities in Economic dimension

Expectations of Affected Local Communities in Social dimension
Expectations of Affected Local Communities in Environmental dimension

Hypothesis:
H1: Expectations of Government Authorities exert a significant impact on construction project
performance.
Sub dimensions:
H 1.1) Economic factors exert a significant impact on construction performance.
H 1.2) Environmental factors exert a significant impact on the construction performance.
H 1.3) Social factors exert a significant impact on the construction performance.

H2: Expectations of General Public exerts a significant impact on construction project

performance.
Sub dimensions:
H 2.1) Economic factors exert a significant impact on construction performance.
H 2.2) Environmental factors exert a significant impact on the construction performance.
H 2.3) Social factors exert a significant impact on the construction performance.

H3: Expectations of Affected Local Communities exert a significant impact on construction

project performance.
Sub dimensions:
H 3.1) Economic factors exert a significant impact on construction project performance.
H 3.2) Environmental factors exert a significant impact on construction project performance.
H 3.3) Social factors exert a significant impact on the construction project performance.
Figure-3 provides the basis for the development of the following theoretical framework:

External stakeholder External stakeholders

expectation expectations in specific aspects

Economic dimension
H1.1

Governmental Environmental dimension

Authorities H1.2

H1
Social dimension H1.3

Economic dimension
H2.1

Construction
General Public Environmental dimension
project
H2.2
H2
performance
Social dimension
H2.3

Economic dimension
H3.1

Affected Local
Community Environmental dimension
H3.2

H3

Social dimension
H3.3

Figure-3 Theoretical framework

3 Chapter Three: Research Methodology

This chapter provides the detailed research design for this research study. It will include the
demonstration on the target population, sampling method and the questionnaire design to reflect
on the data collection process. The SPSS software will be used to analyze data in order to
provide the significant of the study based on the empirical evidence that created from the
research findings.

3.1 Research design

The design of the research describes the procedural steps and stages that this research will be
followed to lead the researcher towards the research findings. Research study’s objective and
purpose usually lead researcher to choose an appropriate research method for the research
(Iacono, Brown & Holtham, 2009). The key objective of this research study is to assess the
impact extent level of expectations from the society and the public on the implementation of
megaprojects in China, the purpose is to giving the construction management team a better
understanding on how strong of external stakeholders influence the megaprojects in China. The
quantitative analysis provides researcher a more objective evaluation therefore a more precise
and reliable results (Mkansi & Acheampong, 2012). Furthermore, the advantage of adopting the
quantitative analysis is to have the ability to analyze the larger size of data at a more efficient
rate as well as provide the strong empirical evidence to support the hypotheses testing for this
research study (Sharela, 2016).

The positivist, deductive studies usually adopt the survey questionnaire as the data collection
tool,
this quantitative study will also use a questionnaire (in Chinese) to collect data from the sample
size which the target population are the stakeholders involving in Chinese megaprojects. The
sampling approach will be identified to apply the right size of the sample size to represent the
target population for this study. The deductive reasoning will become the basis of the application
in this research study to identify the significant of the relationship between the independent
variables and dependent variables included in this research model and to conclude the hypothesis
framework with the logical thinking and understanding from the empirical evidence of this
research study (Doyle, 2020). The data analysis will focus on the statistical output which will be
generated from the use of the SPSS software and will include the fundamental analysis including
the reliability analysis, factor analysis, descriptive analysis, correlation analysis, and the
regression analysis.

3.2 Data collection process

The data collection process for this research is emphasizing on the data input from the primary
data market. The closed-ended questionaries will be sent through We-Chat platform to the target
population. The most important reason of using the online data collection as the way is the
current situation caused by Covid-19 pandemic. The questionnaire is designed accordingly to
help to understand the data input from the research scope by including the questions regarding
the independent variables and dependent variable that is included in this research study.

3.3 Questionnaire design

The questionnaire firstly provide a brief introduction, it ensures the participants understand the
purpose of the research study and provides the necessary transparency for the participants
(Song, Son & Oh, 2015). The questionnaire is divided into 5 different sections to provide the
different stages of the data input for the questionnaire design.

The first section of the questionnaire provides the relevant questions to understand the
demographic and background of the participants. This helps to understand the statistics on the
demographic of the respondents and verifying the distribution of the sample size from the
participations, this ensures the proper distribution form the sample size to represent the target
population of the research (Krosnick, 2018). The second, third and the fourth section of the
questionnaire represents each group of external stakeholders’ expectations in 3 different
dimensions. Under each dimension, there are the questions regarding the independent variables
included in this research study. The 5-Point Likert Scale is applied as the basis for the data input
as the measurement for the data that will derive the significant in the data analysis in the research
findings (Krosnick, 2018). And the 5-Point Likert Scale is also applied for the measurement of
the data input on the dependent variable (which is execution process of the project ) of this
research study.

3.4 Targeting population and sampling method

The target population for this research study are the employees that is currently working in the
construction industry and relevant to the involvement of Chinese megaprojects. At the individual
level, they are project managers, site managers, supervisors, and other key team members. For
the sampling method, the sampling approach will involve the use of probability sampling
approach where the sampling will focus on the use of the equal chance of selection for the
sample size while the non-probability sampling approach will suggest the opposite approach
where the judgment of the researchers will become the main focus in the selection of the samples
(Apuke, 2017). This research will apply the non-probability sampling approach where the
convenience sampling method is adopted, because the convenience sampling can help to
improve the efficiency of the data collection process without too much complexity to avoid the
higher use of the resources for the sample selection.

3.6 Data analysis

The data analysis will involve the use of SPSS software, it helps to generate the statistical output
for the research study. The SPSS software is chosen for the data analysis is because it is easy to
navigate and use, and it is able to generate multiple sets of the statistical results. The data
analysis for this research include the use of the reliability analysis, factor analysis, descriptive
analysis, correlation analysis and the regression analysis to create a complete walkthrough on the
data analysis.

The reliability test will be used as the fundamental testing to ensure the data consistency without
the unusual variation that could negatively influence the data result for this research study
(Cresswell et al., 2003). The reliability test will be tested for the data input for each variable to
ensure that the data can be include in the next phase of the data analysis (Cooper & Schindler,
2014). The minimum acceptable of 70% will be used in setting the benchmark for the reliability
of the data as reference to the Table-2 which will become the requirement for the data to be
applied in the further data analysis.
Table 2 : Cronbach’s coefficient alpha interpretation (Cresswell et al., 2003)

The factor analysis will help to validate the data to ensure the variable is significant for the data
analysis testing. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO Test) will be used to determine the adequacy of
the sampling in the SPSS software. In general, the KMO value from 0.8 to 1 will be identified as
sufficient sampling while the KMO value less than 0.6 will indicate that the sampling is not
adequate for the research, the KMO value between the 0.5 and 0.6 will requires the own
judgement to determine the adequacy of the sampling for the research (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016).
Therefore, the minimum value to achieve for the KMO value will be nothing below 0.5 to ensure
the reliability and accuracy of the data analysis for the findings of this research.

The descriptive analysis is used to determine and identify the pattern on the attributes of the data
where in this research study will help in understanding the demographic of the data collected
through the questionnaire distribution (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). It will help understand the
distribution of the population within the sample size to reflect the reasonable representation of
the population of this study.

The correlation analysis will be used to understand the significant in the correlation between
variables. The idea of correlation analysis will help to determine the positive and negative
relationship for two variables where the range of the coefficient correlation will be ranging from
-1 to +1 based on the statistical output for the research (Gogtay & Thatte, 2017). The Pearson
Correlation Coefficient will provide the measurement on the strength of correlation which will
help in identifying the correlation between the variables.
The regression analysis will be used to identify the significant in the relationship of the
independent variables identified in this research study which include expectations from
government authorities (in economic, environment and social dimension), general public (in
economic, environment and social dimension), and affected local community (in economic,
environment and social dimension) against the impacts of the megaproject implementation
process as the dependent variable. The individual independent variable will be tested with the
tolerance level of 5% to reflect on the presence of the significant in the relationship to identify
the significant influence of the variable as the factor to contribute to the impact on the key
success driver for the megaprojects based on the external stakeholder involvement (Sekaran &
Bougie, 2016).
4 Chapter Four : Findings/Results

This chapter presents and interprets the survey result. There are total of 356 respondents filled
out the survey questionnaire. First,

4.1 The questionnaire test of reliability

Confidence analysis of Cronbach

The sample Reliability
Variable
size indicator
Government Expectation (GE) 356 0.945
Public Expectation (PE) 356 0.947
Local Affected Communities Expectation
356 0.922
(LACE)
Project Execution Process (PEP) 356 0.924
Table3-Reliability analysis

From the above table: the Cronbach alpha value of all variables are greater than 0.7, which
confirms that the questionnaire can be considered highly reliable throughout the sample study.

4.2 Validity Test

 KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.945
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 12661.942
df 703
Sig. 0.000
Table4-Validity analysis

The research used KMO and Bartlett’s test to check validity of the survey questionnaire, the
table-4 shows that the scale of KMO is 0.945 which is greater than 0.8, and the Bartlett test of
sphere significance probability is 0.000, it confirms that the sample data are highly relevant, and
it is feasible to be used for the following research study.
4.3 Participants’ profile and factor analysis of each factor’s significant
4.3.1 Gender

Figure4- Gender

According to fig-3, 85.39% of participants are males, and 14.61% are females.

One-way ANOVAa
Gender：(Mean ±Std.Dev) GE PE LACE PEP
Male (n=304) 3.69±0.93 3.58±0.95 3.57±0.93 3.71±0.96
Female (n=52) 3.87±0.69 3.63±0.91 3.59±0.86 3.73±0.79
F 1.713 0.129 0.033 0.01
p 0.191 0.72 0.857 0.919
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01
Table5- ANOVA 1
Tbale-5 shows: for different gender, there is no significant variance (p>0.05 of all variables) of
expectations from government, public, communities and project execution process.

4.3.2 Age
Figure5-Age

Fig-4 shows age distribution, 48.88% of participants are 26 to 35 years’ old, 23.88% are 36 to 50
years’ old, 22.19% are 18 to 25 years’ old, and 5.06% are above 50 years’ old.

One-way ANOVAa
Age：(Mean ±Std.Dev) GE PE LACE PEP
18 to 25 (n=79) 4.02±0.92 3.96±0.92 3.91±0.89 4.04±0.88
26 to 35 (n=174) 3.72±0.86 3.54±0.94 3.56±0.90 3.73±0.95
36 to 50 (n=85) 3.46±0.85 3.39±0.82 3.35±0.84 3.42±0.82
Above 50 (n=18) 3.62±1.14 3.34±1.23 3.28±1.20 3.56±1.18
F 5.702 6.022 6.042 6.389
p 0.001** 0.001** 0.001** 0.000**
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01
Table6- ANOVA 2

Tbale-6 shows: for different age group of participants, there is a significant variance of
expectations from government (F=5.702, p=0.001**), public (F=6.022, p=0.001**),
communities (F=6.042, p=0.001**), and project execution process (F=6.389, p=0.000**).

4.3.3 Education Level

Figure6-Education level

Figure-5 shows majority of participants (60.96%) have bachelor’s degree, 21.91% have a junior college
degree, 9.27% have postgraduate or above degree, and 5.62% have a high school degree, only 2.25% of
participants have a middle school or lower degree.

One-way ANOVAa
Level of education：(Mean ±Std.Dev) GE PE LACE PEP
Middle school or below(n=8) 2.90±1.31 2.98±1.35 3.06±1.15 3.23±1.39
High school(n=20) 3.80±1.12 3.67±1.14 3.58±1.02 3.80±1.10
Junior college (n=78) 3.70±0.89 3.58±0.88 3.51±0.90 3.82±0.87
Bachelor’s degree (n=217) 3.74±0.89 3.60±0.96 3.61±0.94 3.71±0.92
Postgraduate or above (n=33) 3.77±0.72 3.63±0.74 3.59±0.71 3.56±0.99
F 1.776 0.896 0.801 1.027
p 0.133 0.467 0.525 0.393
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01
Table7- ANOVA 3

Tbale-7 shows: for different education level of participants, there is no significant variance
(p>0.05 of all variables) of expectations from government, public, communities and project
execution process.

4.3.4 Period of Employment

Figure7-Period of Employment

According to fig-6, there are 29.21% of participants have been working in the construction industry for
more than 10 years, 20.22% of them have been working for construction work for 5 to 10 years, 18.54%
have been working in the industry within 1 year, 17.7% have been working from 1 to 3 years, the rest of
14.33% of participants have been working for 3 to 5 years in the industry.

One-way ANOVAa
Period of Employment：(Mean ±Std.Dev) GE PE LACE PEP
Within 1 year (n=66) 3.92±0.93 3.91±0.91 3.80±0.89 3.99±0.95
1 to 3year(s) (n=63) 3.66±1.03 3.58±1.08 3.55±1.09 3.66±1.10
3 to 5years (n=51) 3.72±0.89 3.55±1.00 3.65±0.82 3.72±0.87
5to 10years (n=72) 3.73±0.80 3.57±0.81 3.55±0.81 3.67±0.84
More than 10 years (n=104) 3.62±0.88 3.42±0.92 3.41±0.93 3.60±0.91
F 1.215 2.818 1.963 1.936
p 0.304 0.025* 0.1 0.104
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01
Table8- ANOVA 4

Tbale-8 shows: for different period of employment, there is no significant variance of

expectations from government (p>0.05), communities (p>0.05) and project execution process
(p>0.05) on different employment period. However, there is 0.05 variance (F2.818, p=0.025*)
between employment period and public expectations.

4.3.5 Project Category

Figure8-Project Category

Fig-7 shows the project category distribution. 53.65% of participants’ project are infrastructure,
30.9% mentioned others options, which include dredging works, municipal engineering, port and
pier construction, hydraulic engineering and environmental engineering, 7.58% of participants
involved public building projects, 5.06% of participants’ projects are residential area, 1.97% are
industrial plant, and minority of participants’ projects are business integration (0.84%).

One-way ANOVAa
Project Category：(Mean ±Std.Dev) GE PE LACE PEP
Industrial plant (n=7) 3.31±0.59 3.10±0.53 2.92±0.68 3.17±0.93
Business integration (n=3) 2.83±0.29 2.97±0.05 3.33±0.58 3.06±0.25
Residential area (n=18) 3.39±0.81 3.57±0.67 3.75±0.68 3.44±0.89
Public buildings (n=27) 3.48±1.02 3.40±0.96 3.44±0.82 3.59±1.05
Infrastructure (n=191) 3.77±0.87 3.61±0.97 3.58±0.94 3.72±0.94
Others (n=110) 3.79±0.94 3.65±0.97 3.60±0.96 3.83±0.91
F 2.042 0.93 1.017 1.559
p 0.072 0.462 0.407 0.171
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01
Table9- ANOVA table 5

Tbale-5 shows: for different project category, there is no significant variance (p>0.05 of all
variables) of expectations from government, public, communities and project execution process.

4.3.6 Project Duration

Figure9-Project Duration

Fig-7 shows participants project duration information, 48.03% of projects had lasted from 1 to 2 years,
23.03% had lasted from 2 to 5years, 21.35% lasted within 1 year and 7.58% of projects had lasted for
more than 5 years.

One-way ANOVAa
Project Duration：(Mean ±Std.Dev) GE PE LACE PEP
Within 1 year (n=76) 3.79±0.98 3.63±1.10 3.72±1.05 3.89±0.91
1 to 2 year(s) (n=171) 3.74±0.85 3.67±0.84 3.61±0.87 3.77±0.93
2 to 5 years (n=82) 3.49±0.95 3.29±0.97 3.32±0.91 3.38±0.96
More than 5 years (n=27) 4.07±0.68 3.84±0.85 3.66±0.76 3.88±0.82
F 3.335 3.99 2.868 4.979
p 0.020* 0.008** 0.037* 0.002**
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01
Table10- ANOVA table 6

Tbale-10 shows: there is a 0.05 variance of expectations from government (F=3.335, p=0.020*),
a 0.01 variance of expectations from public (F=3.99, p=0.008**), a 0.05 variance of expectations
from communities (F=2.868, p=0.037*), and 0.01 variance of expectations from project
execution process (F=4.979, p=0.002*) on different project duration.

4.4 Descriptive statistics

Std.De
Variables N Mean
v
 Government Expectation 356 3.719 0.903
Public Expectation 356 3.588 0.946
Local Affected Communities
356 3.571 0.92
Expectation
Project Execution Process 356 3.715 0.939
Table5-the overall Descriptive statistics

Tbale-5 shows that all variables earned the mean value that are over 3, it means participants rated
on each group’s expectation are high. However, the standard deviation value of public
expectation is 0.946 which means the participants has the most scoring differences on public
expectation.

4.4.1 The government authorities expectation

Variables N Mean Std.Dev

Economic Dimension 356 3.715 0.952
Social Dimension 356 3.729 0.964
Environmental Dimension 356 3.702 0.962
Government Expectation 356 3.719 0.903
Table6-Government expectations
Table-6 shows that participants rated government expectation from economic dimension
(mean=3.715), social dimension (mean=3.729) and environmental dimension (mean=3.702) at a
similar level. The standard deviation of social dimension gained the highest value 0.964 which
means participants has the most different thoughts on social dimension.

4.4.2 The general public expectation

Variables N Mean Std.Dev

Economic Dimension 356 3.617 1.008
Social Dimension 356 3.54 0.979
Environmental Dimension 356 3.638 1.032
Public Expectation 356 3.588 0.946
Table7-Public expectations
Table-7 shows that participants rated public’s expectation on each dimension are high. The
standard deviation of economic dimension got the highest value of 1.008 means participants
have the most difference thoughts on scoring in this aspect.

4.4.3 The affected local communities expectation

Name N Mean Std.Dev

Economic Dimension 356 3.547 0.977
Social Dimension 356 3.586 0.991
Environmental Dimension 356 3.579 1.01
Communities Expectation 356 3.571 0.92
Table8-Communities expectations
Table-8 shows that the local affected community’s expectations from economic (mean=3.547),
social (mean=3.586) and environmental dimension (mean=3.579) have the similar score on
project implementation. The standard deviation value of environmental dimension of local
community’s expectation is 1.01 which means the participants has the most scoring differences
under environmental dimension.

4.5 Pearson Correlation Result

Mean Std.Dev GE PE LACE PEP

GE 3.719 0.903 1
PE 3.588 0.946 0.819** 1
LACE 3.571 0.92 0.748** 0.826** 1
PEP 3.715 0.939 0.636** 0.705** 0.651** 1
N=356 * p<0.05 ** p<0.01
Table9-overall Pearson Correlationo

From above table-9, it shows that expectations from government authorities shared a moderate
positive correlation with project execution process (r=0.636**), the correlation between
expectations from general public and project execution process is strong positive correlation
(r=0.705**). The correlation between expectations from affected local communities and project
execution process is moderate and positive (r=0.651**). The findings shows that expectations
from the general public share a strongest correlation with project execution process.
4.5.1 GE and PEP

ED SD ETD PEP
ED 1
SD 0.836** 1
ETD 0.791** 0.850**
PEP 0.613** 0.580** 0.650** 1
Table10- Pearson Correlation of Government expectations in economic, social and environmental
dimension

Table-10 shows that expectations from government authorities in economic dimension shared a
moderate positive correlation with project execution process (r=0.613**), expectations from
government authorities in social dimension shared a moderate correlation relationship with
project execution process (r=0.580**), expectations from government authorities in
environmental dimension shared a moderate positive correlation with project execution process
(r=0.650**). The findings shows that expectations from government in environmental
dimension share a stronger correlation with project execution process.

4.5.2 PE and PEP

ED SD ETD PEP
ED 1
SD 0.837** 1
ETD 0.814** 0.842** 1
PEP 0.648** 0.680** 0.660** 1
Table11- Pearson Correlation of public expectations in economic, social and environmental dimension

Table-11 shows that expectations from public in economic dimension shared a moderate positive
correlation with project execution process (r=0.648**), expectations from public in social
dimension shared a moderate positive correlation with project execution process (r=0.680**),
expectations from public in environmental dimension shared a moderate positive correlation with
project execution process (r=0.660**). The findings shows that expectations from general public
in social dimension share a stronger correlation with project execution process.

4.5.3 LACE and PEP

 ED SD ETD PEP
ED 1
SD 0.833** 1
ETD 0.762** 0.771** 1
PEP 0.643** 0.626** 0.544** 1
Table12- Pearson Correlation of Local community expectation in economic, social and environmental
dimension

Table-12 shows that expectations from local community in economic dimension shared a
moderate positive correlation with project execution process (r=0.643**), expectations from
local community in social dimension shared a moderate positive correlation with project
execution process (r=0.626**), expectations from local community in environmental dimension
moderate positive correlation with project execution process (r=0.544**). The findings shows
that expectations from local community in economic dimension share a stronger correlation with
project execution process.

The correlation results had proved the relevance relationship between independent and
dependent variables from this research study, but the results are insufficient to prove the cause
and effect relationship between independent and dependent variables. To achieve this purpose,
four regression tests run and as shown in below.

4.6 Linear Regression Test Result

4.6.1 Government expectations’ impact on project execution process

Linear Regression
Coefficients 95% CI VIF
1.169**
Constant 0.859 ~ 1.478 -
（7.419）
0.296***
Economic Dimension 0.15 ~ 0.441 3.602
(3.997）
-0.076
Social Dimension -0.243 ~ 0.091 4.860
(-0.895)
Environment Dimension 0.467*** 0.318 ~ 0.617 3.895
 (6.138)
N 356
R² 0.45
Adjusted R ² 0.445
F F (3,352)=95.94, p=0.000
Dependent Variable：PEP
D-W value：1.858
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01 ***p<0.001 the value within the bracket is t
value
Table13 - Linear regression 1

It can be seen from the above table-13 that when the government expectations in economic,
social, environment dimensions are used as independent variables, and the project execution
process is used as dependent variable for the liner regression analysis. The R ² value is 0.450,
which means expectations of government stakeholder in economic, social, environment
dimension explain 45% variance in PEP. F (3,352) =95.94 and p=0.000<0.05 proves the model is
effective which means there must be at least one variable from the economic, social,
environment dimension has significant on PEP.

Economic dimension coefficient: 0.296*** (t=3.997，p=0.000), which means expectations from

government authorities in economic dimension has very strong significant on PEP.
Social dimension coefficient: -0.076 (t=-0.895 ， p=0.371), which means expectations from
government authorities in social dimension has no significant on PEP.
Environment dimension coefficient: 0.467***(t=6.138 ， p=0.000), which means expectations
from government authorities in environment dimension has very strong significant on PEP.

4.6.2 Public expectations’ impact on project execution process

Linear Regression
Coefficients 95% CI VIF
1.208***
Constant 0.934 ~ 1.482 -
（8.665）
0.163*
Economic Dimension 0.027 ~ 0.300 3.881
(2.355）
0.322***
Social Dimension 0.170 ~ 0.473 4.497
(4.183)
Environment Dimension 0.214*** 0.079 ~ 0.349 3.989
 (3.110)
N 356
R² 0.45
Adjusted R ² 0.492
F F (3,352)=115.832, p=0.000
Dependent Variable：PEP
D-W value：1.858
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01 ***p<0.001 the value within the bracket is t
value
Table14 – Linear regression 2

It can be seen from the above table-14 that when the public expectations in economic, social,
environment dimensions are used as independent variables, and the project execution process is
used as dependent variable for the liner regression analysis. The R ² value is 0.450, which means
expectations of public stakeholder in economic, social, environment dimension explain 45%
variance in PEP. F (3,352)=115.832 and p=0.000<0.05 proves the model is effective which
means there must be at least one variable from the economic, social, environment dimension has
significant on PEP.

Economic dimension coefficient: 0.163* (t=2.355 ， p=0.019), which means expectations from
public in economic dimension has significant on PEP.
Social dimension coefficient: 0.322*** (t=4.183 ， p=0.000), which means expectations from
public in social dimension has very strong significant on PEP.
Environment dimension coefficient: 0.214***(t=3.110 ， p=0.002), which means expectations
from public in environment dimension has very strong significant on PEP.

4.6.3 Local communities expectations’ impact on project execution process

Linear Regression
Coefficients 95% CI VIF
1.342***
Constant 1.047 ~ 1.637 -
（8.947）
0.366***
Economic Dimension 0.221 ~ 0.511 3.698
(4.973)
0.264***
Social Dimension 0.170 ~ 0.409 3.819
(3.571)
 0.036
Environment Dimension -0.086 ~ 0.157 2.790
(0.576)
N 356
R² 0.44
Adjusted R ² 0.435
F F (3,352)=92.225, p=0.000
Dependent Variable：PEP
D-W value：1.858
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01 ***p<0.001 the value within the bracket is t
value
Table15 – Linear regression 3

It can be seen from the above table-15 that when the local community expectations in economic,
social, environment dimensions are used as independent variables, and the project execution
process is used as dependent variable for the liner regression analysis. The R ² value is 0.440,
which means expectations of local community stakeholder in economic, social, environment
dimension explain 44% variance in PEP. F (3,352)= 92.225 and p=0.000<0.05 proves the model
is effective which means there must be at least one variable from the economic, social,
environment dimension has significant on PEP.

Economic dimension coefficient: 0.366*** (t=4.973，p=0.000), which means expectations from

local community in economic dimension has very strong significant on PEP.
Social dimension coefficient: 0.264*** (t=3.571 ， p=0.000), which means expectations from
local community in social dimension has very strong significant on PEP.
Environment dimension coefficient: 0.036 (t=3.110，p=0.565), which means expectations from
local community in environment dimension has no significant on PEP.

4.6.4 Overall expectations of government, public and local community impact on project
execution process
Linear Regression  
Coefficients 95% CI VIF
0.943*** 0.642 ~ 1.245 -
Constant
(6.162)
GE 0.144* 0.009 ~ 0.280 3.201
(2.094)
PE 0.434*** 0.282 ~0.586 4.423
 (5.613)
LACE 0.190*** 0.055~ 0.325 3.303
(2.772)
N 356
R² 0.518
Adjusted R ² 0.514
F F (3,352)=125.904, p=0.000
Dependent Variable: PEP
D-W Value：1.857
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01 ***p<0.001 the value within the bracket is t value
Table16 – Overall Linear regression

It can be seen from the above table-16 that when the overall expectations from government,
public and local community are used as independent variables, and the project execution process
is used as dependent variable for the liner regression analysis. The R ² value is 0.518, which
means expectations of the overall 3 stakeholder groups explain 51.8% variance in PEP.
F(3,352)= 125.904 and p=0.000<0.05 proves the model is effective which means there must be
at least one variable from the government expectation, public expectation and local community
expectation has significant on PEP.

GE coefficient: 0.144* (t=2.094 ， p=0.037), which means expectations from government has
significant on PEP.
PE coefficient: 0.434*** (t=5.613 ， p=0.000), which means expectations from general public
has very strong significant on PEP.
LACE coefficient: 0.190*** (t=2.772 ， p=0.006), which means expectations from local
community has very strong significant on PEP.

4.7 Summary of all hypotheses

Hypotheses Statistical output Interpretation Final result

statement
H1: Expectations of Government Authorities exert a significant impact on project execution
process.
Correlation=0.636**
Regression =0.144*

Hypothesis is valid
Economic Correlation=0.613** Moderate positive Hypothesis is valid
Regression correlation and very
=0.296*** strong significant
relationship

Social Correlation=0.580** Moderate positive Hypothesis is NOT

Regression=-0.076 correlation and no valid
significant
relationship

Environment Correlation=0.650** Moderate positive Hypothesis is valid

Regression=0.467*** correlation and very
strong significant
relationship
H2: Expectations of General Public exerts a significant impact on construction project
performance.
Correlation=0.705**
Regression =0.434***

Hypothesis is valid
Economic Correlation=0.648** Moderate positive Hypothesis is valid
Regression =0.163* correlation and
significant causal
relationship
Social Correlation=0.680** Moderate positive Hypothesis is valid
Regression correlation and very
=0.322*** strong significant
relationship
Environment Correlation=0.660** Moderate positive Hypothesis is valid
Regression correlation and very
 =0.214*** strong significant
relationship
H3: Expectations of Affected Local Communities exert a significant impact on construction
project performance.
Correlation=0.651**
Regression =0.190***

Hypothesis is valid
Economic Correlation=0.643** Moderate positive Hypothesis is valid
Regression correlation and very
=0.366*** strong significant
relationship
Social Correlation=0.626** Moderate positive Hypothesis is valid
Regression correlation and very
=0.264*** strong significant
relationship
Environment Correlation=0.544** Moderate positive Hypothesis is NOT
Regression =0.036 correlation and no valid
significant
relationship
Table 17-summary of all hypotheses

5 Chapter Five : Analysis/Discussion and Recommendation

The purpose of this research study is to enhance the understanding of external stakeholders’
expectations impact in Chinese MIPs. The research study assessed the impact extent level of
expectations from governmental stakeholder, public stakeholder and local community
stakeholder in economic, environment and social dimension to construction project performance
by presenting the empirical evidence which generated through sample data were collected from
closed-ended questionnaire among members who has been working in Chinese construction
industry.
As the research results show, a megaproject’s performance is positively correlated with
expectations from government, public and local community. Furthermore, these three groups of
stakeholders had shown their expectations have significant on project performance. Therefore,
generally speaking, the research results confirmed that external stakeholder in construction sector
should be regarded as essential as internal stakeholders, especially at the design and the planning
phase of projects (Olander & Landin, 2008), taking their expectations into the project
stakeholder management could avoid devastating consequences on projects such as litigations of
quality issue and time overrun (Chinyio & Olomolaiye, 2010). However, the likelihood of
fulfilling all stakeholders’ expectations is low (Olander, 2007), identifying and analyzing which
group of external stakeholder have a more intensive level of influence over the others is
necessary. The survey results from research study will provide project managers (PMs) a guide
in decision making during project planning and implementing based on their (government, public
and local community) impact extent level that generated form this research study.

5.1 Government expectations and project success

As we can see from the table-17, the finding result confirmed the hypotheses (H1.1 and H1.2) we
made, and it is consistent with the study result from Gan & Li in 2012 that indicated government
is the project stakeholder which rated as the most influential in environment dimension and the
2nd most influential in economic dimension. The government’s mainly concerns in environment
aspect in this study is to expect project developers manage construction waste efficiently and
follow the sustainable development principle (Creighton, 1999; Zeng et al., 2015). Unlike
general projects, the environmental changes that brought by MIPs are usually profound and
irreversible (Zeng et al., 2015), if the project brings a serious environmental and ecological issue
to the local area, government authorities would stall the project process. For example, the Three
Gorges Dam project in China had been involved in serious debate and had delayed for a long
time because of the environmental and ecological challenges that this project would bring to the
local ecosystem (Stone, 2008). Therefore, when the project meets environmental assessment and
policy that made by government authorities, it increases the rate of achieving a better
construction project performance. In addition to expectations in economic aspect, as one of the
prime goal of initiating a large-scale project is to boost the area economy substantially
(Maddaloni & Davis, 2017), it is not surprisingly to see the government will giving support
hence increase the project’s overall performance when the MIP can promote the reginal
economy.

Expectations from government authorities in social dimension that included in this study are the
desire to MIPs have a flexibility of adapting future changing needs, how the project will reflect
the city’s characteristic hence increasing the local tourism and reputation, and safety
management during the construction. When these concerns and expectations are met, it was
assumed to have a direct effect on project performance (H1.3). However, it was found that there
is moderate positive correlation but no significant relationship between two variables. This result
reveals that there is a connection between social attributes from large-scale project, but social
attributes is not a decisive factor for achievement of successful project. One potential reason
might be the social benefits that brought form mega infrastructure projects is considered less
important than the economic benefits as China’s reginal economic development level is always
highly correlated with the infrastructure development (Fan & Zhang, 2014), the government
therefore prefers to pay more attention on economic benefits which can be gained from MIP
rather than its social benefits. Another reason might be social risks that include safety
management during the megaproject construction process has not attained enough concerns and
expectations in the industry because safety management performance remains poor in the
Chinese construction projects over the past few decades (Zhang et al., 2021). Thus, the
comparatively less concerns on social benefits and social risks might be able to explain why
expectations of government authorities in social dimension did not exert a significant impact on
project performance in this research study.

5.2 Public expectations and project implementation process

Hypotheses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 suggested that expectations of general public in economic,
environmental and economic dimensions will exert significant influence on project performance,
and this study confirmed that. This is not surprising because there are amount of previous
literatures indicated general public have impact on project especially MIPs are such projects that
have huge impact on the public (Manowong & Ogunlanas, 2009), and public stakeholder was
always rated as “Medium-High” important in study from Gan &Li (2012). However, it is
surprisingly to see the public gained the highest regression indicator among others which means
participants think the public has even greater impact over government authorities and local
communities on megaproject’ performance (Government =0.144*, Public =0.434***, Local
community=0.190***). Therefore, this study conclude that PMs should pay most attention on
public’s expectation in order to improve the megaproject’s overall performance.

5.3 Local affected communities expectations and project implementation process

Based on the qualitative study about managing the local community will help to enhance project
performance (Maddaloni & Davis, 2017), this research study assumed in hypothesis 3 that
expectations of affected local communities have significant impact on construction project
performance, and this relationship could be confirmed in this study.

For more detailed information, the regression indicator showed a very strong significant
relationship between community’s economic expectations and construction project performance.
As this study used three factors include monetary compensation and resettlement policy, value
improvement of assets, and substitutes economic benefits, the finding result confirmed that these
strategies provided by PMs during the construction process are very necessary to increase the
project’s performance.

In terms of the social expectation which include offer appropriate and anticipated traffic plan,
protect local heritage and residents interests, the coefficient is positive and have very strong
significant to the construction project performance. The arguments made by Zeng et al.,(2015)
and Xue et al., (2015) that Chinese companies and governments are started considering
sustainability and social responsibility for major infrastructure projects can be used to
interpretated this relationship.

Move to the environment dimension of expectations from local community stakeholder, it is

noticeable that hypothesis 3.2 has to be rejected since empirical data indicates a small positive
effect. This is not a surprising result because even there are literatures stated local community is
the direct affected stakeholder of pollutions from projects, but they are the least liable
stakeholder department (Zeng et al., 2015).

According to Xue et al., (2015), besides the economic benefits brought to local government, a
mega infrastructure project is usually an important infrastructure for serving the public and local
residents. However, in project management arena, taking their expectation in the project
management is often missing. The study emphasizes the importance of external stakeholders
through presenting the empirical evidence. Based on the survey result, this study suggests PMs
should put general public at the first place as their expectations exert the strongest significant,
and then pay more concerns on affected local communities, the government authorities’
expectation impact level is the lowest to construction project performance therefore PMs could
take government stakeholder’s concerns at a comparatively lower level.

6 Chapter Six: Conclusions

It is acknowledgeable that both internal and external stakeholders are considered very critical in
construction project development through the project lifecycle. To balance well the needs and
expectations from these stakeholders is a prime goal for construction PMs. Often times, the PMs
pay more attention on internal stakeholders as they are the ones that are more powerful of
controlling related resources of the project while external stakeholders’ expectations may be
neglected or paid deficient attention.

The study of external stakeholders’ importance and impact level in current existing literatures is
scattered, this research study enhancing the understanding of external stakeholders’ expectation
impact and offering PMs the opportunity to increase public support and decrease local opposition
from external stakeholders toward megaprojects by taking their expectations into account at the
project initiating phase.
Eventually, the application of this study is expected to help PMs and future researchers in
improving external stakeholder management in construction sector hence improving project
overall performance in the Chinese construction industry.
7 Chapter Seven: References