Specific Aspects of Risk Assessment in Financing Projects in the Hotel Business
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is dedicated to exploring the specific features of risk assessment in the financing of hotel business projects. The relevance of the topic is driven by the high instability of revenues in the hotel sector and its vulnerability to external shocks, which requires lenders to apply more conservative analytical methods. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the systematization of modern approaches to risk assessment, combining quantitative models with expert qualitative parameters, as well as in identifying mechanisms for their mitigation. The study describes key risk groups affecting the sustainability of projects, analyzes methods of credit analysis, stress testing, and scoring models, and examines risk management tools, including government support programs and diversification practices. Special attention is paid to the comparative characteristics of urban and resort hotels, as well as the influence of brand reputation and operator experience on lending conditions. The study aims to identify the factors that determine the stability of hotel projects and to propose ways to improve risk management practices. To achieve this goal, methods of comparative analysis, interpretation of statistical indicators, and generalization of scientific sources were used. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive approach to risk assessment that ensures a balance between the interests of banks and the development of the hospitality industry. The article will be useful for researchers, financial sector practitioners, and representatives of the tourism industry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.050 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".