*5.2. Discussion*

The Project sponsor (Ascan Empressa Construtructora) is not directly engaged in the Project and therefore in the stakeholder management. Since proceeding the Project to the operational phase, the sponsor has been focused on controlling the completion of established commercial goals from the global enterprise point of view. The responsibility for managing the Project rests primarily on the SPV (Ascan Branch in Poland). The SPV is responsible for arranging contracts and non-contract relations with stakeholders, including local inhabitants, sport facility users, and small businesses. At the stage of project construction, SPV guaranteed the use of parking for nearby inhabitants at preferred fees as they suffered the most from nuisance related to the construction of the Project. The SPV informs and presents offers to the individual and corporate clients, and negotiates and signs contracts with clients and other entities engaged indirectly in the project operations such as insurers, suppliers, and subcontractors. The engagemen<sup>t</sup> of the entities, including the Project sponsor and SPV, is on a commercial basis.

The grantor is represented by the City authorities and is responsible for formulating policy goals. The general aim of the policy is to limit the number of parking places, taking into consideration the capacity of the road network, which should lead to a shortening time of parking and more effective parking use. Above all, the policy should eliminate local street parking and make them walkable. The grantor focuses therefore primarily on the direct product, which is new infrastructure. There is less consideration of financial and technical issues of the project operational managemen<sup>t</sup> as these issues, according to the DBFO contract, have been transferred to SPV. Simultaneously, the grantor's focus also has a long-term perspective as the Project is a component of a complex policy that would contribute to improving the transportation situation in the City for the interest of the inhabitants. The grantor is supported in the Project by its organizational unit, which is the Department of Transport Infrastructure in Cracow, and a municipal company, which is Municipal Infrastructure Ltd. Their engagemen<sup>t</sup> is also indirect, and the motivation is non-financial, i.e., society and environment-related.

The local community, including residents and Cracow Interschool Sports Center "West", were concerned that the investment would lead to an increase in parking costs and therefore the City authorities did not ban parking on the streets to prevent possible public opposition. Although being indirectly engaged in the Project, inhabitants create a powerful and urgen<sup>t</sup> group of stakeholders even though they include non-users; this is a challenge, as they are non-financially motivated. Therefore, the City authority implements transportation policy and related changes gradually, so the actions hamper access to the City center mostly for those who do not live there, and prioritize the inhabitants' needs. Therefore, the Projects would not operate without end-users paying fees for using the underground car park and the entities delivering different services such as subcontractors, suppliers, and insurers.

The classification of the identified Project stakeholders based on the attributes which have direct and indirect engagemen<sup>t</sup> in the Project, and financial and non-financial motivations (benefits), which relate to dimensions of sustainable development is presented below (Table 2).


**Table 2.** Stakeholders' categorization in Underground Car Park. Source: Own elaboration.

The research strategy allowed to identify and describe the stakeholders, their relations, engagement, and motivation, determining success perception. This helps to understand how to construct relations to ensure the PPP project success, understood as obtaining the goals set by public and private partners. Simultaneously, the case study identifies potential challenges connected with the partnership (mainly focal partners) and the Project.

First, it is worth considering potential opportunities and threats of the Project to the local community. The residents were concerned that the investment would lead to an increase in parking costs. The gradual reduction of car traffic in the city center and restrictions for car parking imposed gradually were aimed toward citizens, not against them. Thanks to these gradual changes in the rule relating the street parking, the threat of public opposition was generally prevented. It occurred that the development and operation of the project did not significantly affect the situation of the residents living in the city center, as was previously expected. Moreover, the whole investment process made the residents more concerned about the city transport policy and its consequences for them. Although the evidence of direct cooperation between the private and public partners is hard to trace in this aspect, the local authority's policy contributes to the operation of the car park. The operation of the car park does not threaten the interests of residents who live in the neighborhood of the car park, and the car park becomes more attractive for those arriving in the city center by car.

Second, due to the law regulations, e.g., Act on Public Roads, the public–private cooperation between the Municipal Infrastructure Ltd. and car park operator is hampered. The operator of a car park has the right to charge fees on a commercial basis; however, the rules imposing the division on public and private facilities cause the local governmen<sup>t</sup> and

private owners of car parks to provide their services separately. As a consequence, main stakeholders are not motivated to cooperate under one car parking system in the city.

Third, the evidence of direct cooperation between the private and public partners in this Project is also "blurred" in the sense that the SPV company has been developed solely by the sponsor and the grantor representation has been fragmented by the engagemen<sup>t</sup> of two public entities. The local governmen<sup>t</sup> is a concession grantor and the signature of the DBFO contract and is co-represented in the PPP by both an organizational unit (Department of Transport Infrastructure) and municipal company (Municipal Infrastructure Ltd.). Although the SPV structure gives benefits such as risk transfer (for instance market risk or financing risk), and in the situation of purely private SPV, also risk-avoidance (for instance in reference to moral risk), the concentration of responsibilities in one entity, which is one of Project Finance and PPP, has the most important advantages [51], and the local governmen<sup>t</sup> engagemen<sup>t</sup> has been fragmented in this Project. This may raise the risk of losing control.

To summarize, the stakeholder analysis proved that PPP projects do not have to be treated as joint cooperation literally. This case study provides evidence that finding a balance in the cooperation of public and private partners could be considered as an important factor of successful stakeholders' management. The car park project is specific, too. The private partner retains the financial and technical responsibilities of a car park operation, whereas the city handles all the organizational tasks relating to the recognition of legal and political frames, pays attention to environmental risks, and takes responsibility for the policy and its acceptance by the citizens, all of which are critical for successful project preparation, realization, and operation. Nevertheless, the legal environment, including implemented regulations on PPP, and multiplicity of legal provisions relating to the actives undertaken by local governments (e.g., Act on Public Roads) impede the cooperation between the stakeholders, as is exemplified by the operator of city parking zones.
