Table A4 Explanatory notes # Note 1... | Emerald Publishing

Table A4

Explanatory notes

#	Note
1	Contractually, megaprojects are often defined in terms of PPPs (van Marrewijk et al., 2008). Typical function-specific definitions of PPPs concern structured long-term (contractual) relationship for sharing risks, benefits, resources and responsibilities in infrastructure financing, construction operation and maintenance (see Brinkerhoff and Brinkerhoff, 2011). In this study, we rely on the definition of PPPs by Bovaird (2004), which is broader and emphasizes the importance of shared dedication to achieve joint outcomes beyond the (principal–agent) dynamic of a contractual relationship
2	Sanderson (2012) argues for two different types of uncertainty in megaprojects: one related to a lack of relevant and reliable data and the other related to the fact that as the future is socially constructed, the nature and range of future events is unknown. In megaprojects, the latter form dominates, and many of the problems that arise are characterized by ‘deep uncertainty’ (Teece et al., 2016), which cannot be solved simply by collecting more data for analytical purposes (Walker et al., 2010)
3	In the European context, both Estonia and Finland have a very low degree of PPP activity at national level and no dedicated PPP-supporting units, that is, institutions (e.g. public agencies) set up to formulate PPP policy, build capacity or create, support and evaluate PPP agreements within government (van den Hurk et al., 2016). The political commitment to pursuing PPPs has remained low, and largely due to the fear that PPP projects would be relatively costly, there are not any large-scale infrastructure PPPs implemented in Estonia. Also in Finland, most of the infrastructure networks are owned by local governments or the state, and there is a strong confidence in long-established institutions and practices regarding public procurement (Leviäkangas et al., 2015; van den Hurk et al., 2016)
4	In Finland, the process of spatial planning and the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) are organized at a regional level, whereas in Estonia, the central government is responsible for initiating and organizing these two related processes for megaprojects with significant strategic impacts. In Finland, the environmental impact assessment (EIA), aimed at reducing or preventing negative environmental impacts of development projects, is an independent procedure, while in Estonia, it is part of the superficies license process, which is typically conducted after the SEA has been completed
5	Espousing a social constructivist position implies that we do not believe uncertainties to exist ‘out there’ for us to discover, but rather we examine the communications of the main actors in order to understand what they perceive to be uncertainties related to the megaproject. Since such actors rarely explicitly use the term ‘uncertainty’ the analysis necessitates that we look for excerpts that can be seen as corresponding to our definition of uncertainty. In our research, we constantly moved ‘back and forth between empirical findings and theoretical elements perceived to be of relevance and interest’ (Lukka, 2014, p. 563). In other words, we developed our theoretical ideas regarding uncertainty alongside our empirical exploration of the case
6	Rail Baltica is an EU-funded greenfield rail transport mega-project currently under construction with a goal to integrate the Baltic countries in the European rail network
7	The significantly higher traffic volume compared to the FinEst Link forecasts was argued to be reachable when reducing travelling times down to 20 min between Helsinki and Tallinn for an increasing number of flight travellers (71 million travellers in total, with 15% of them using the tunnel for changing flights) and building a new artificial island with a tunnel station in the Finnish Gulf. Moreover, regarding the predicted cargo volumes, the developer defended its numbers by underlining that export from Finland continues to grow. Furthermore, in another argument for economic viability, FBAD claimed that linking the tunnel with the Rail Baltica network is not a prerequisite for achieving the cargo volumes (Code 1.4 in Appendix 2 above)

#	Note
1	Contractually, megaprojects are often defined in terms of PPPs (van Marrewijk et al., 2008). Typical function-specific definitions of PPPs concern structured long-term (contractual) relationship for sharing risks, benefits, resources and responsibilities in infrastructure financing, construction operation and maintenance (see Brinkerhoff and Brinkerhoff, 2011). In this study, we rely on the definition of PPPs by Bovaird (2004), which is broader and emphasizes the importance of shared dedication to achieve joint outcomes beyond the (principal–agent) dynamic of a contractual relationship
2	Sanderson (2012) argues for two different types of uncertainty in megaprojects: one related to a lack of relevant and reliable data and the other related to the fact that as the future is socially constructed, the nature and range of future events is unknown. In megaprojects, the latter form dominates, and many of the problems that arise are characterized by ‘deep uncertainty’ (Teece et al., 2016), which cannot be solved simply by collecting more data for analytical purposes (Walker et al., 2010)
3	In the European context, both Estonia and Finland have a very low degree of PPP activity at national level and no dedicated PPP-supporting units, that is, institutions (e.g. public agencies) set up to formulate PPP policy, build capacity or create, support and evaluate PPP agreements within government (van den Hurk et al., 2016). The political commitment to pursuing PPPs has remained low, and largely due to the fear that PPP projects would be relatively costly, there are not any large-scale infrastructure PPPs implemented in Estonia. Also in Finland, most of the infrastructure networks are owned by local governments or the state, and there is a strong confidence in long-established institutions and practices regarding public procurement (Leviäkangas et al., 2015; van den Hurk et al., 2016)
4	In Finland, the process of spatial planning and the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) are organized at a regional level, whereas in Estonia, the central government is responsible for initiating and organizing these two related processes for megaprojects with significant strategic impacts. In Finland, the environmental impact assessment (EIA), aimed at reducing or preventing negative environmental impacts of development projects, is an independent procedure, while in Estonia, it is part of the superficies license process, which is typically conducted after the SEA has been completed
5	Espousing a social constructivist position implies that we do not believe uncertainties to exist ‘out there’ for us to discover, but rather we examine the communications of the main actors in order to understand what they perceive to be uncertainties related to the megaproject. Since such actors rarely explicitly use the term ‘uncertainty’ the analysis necessitates that we look for excerpts that can be seen as corresponding to our definition of uncertainty. In our research, we constantly moved ‘back and forth between empirical findings and theoretical elements perceived to be of relevance and interest’ (Lukka, 2014, p. 563). In other words, we developed our theoretical ideas regarding uncertainty alongside our empirical exploration of the case
6	Rail Baltica is an EU-funded greenfield rail transport mega-project currently under construction with a goal to integrate the Baltic countries in the European rail network
7	The significantly higher traffic volume compared to the FinEst Link forecasts was argued to be reachable when reducing travelling times down to 20 min between Helsinki and Tallinn for an increasing number of flight travellers (71 million travellers in total, with 15% of them using the tunnel for changing flights) and building a new artificial island with a tunnel station in the Finnish Gulf. Moreover, regarding the predicted cargo volumes, the developer defended its numbers by underlining that export from Finland continues to grow. Furthermore, in another argument for economic viability, FBAD claimed that linking the tunnel with the Rail Baltica network is not a prerequisite for achieving the cargo volumes (Code 1.4 in Appendix 2 above)