Development of a New Method for Assessing Project Risks in Sustainable Building Construction Projects in Developing Countries: The Case of Jordan

Abstract

Sustainable buildings contribute significantly to achieving sustainable development and provide many benefits. However, sustainable building construction projects are riskier than traditional construction projects. Thus, this research aimed to identify and assess the risks in sustainable construction projects in Jordan based on their probabilities of occurrence and impacts on time and cost. For this purpose, a literature review and structured interviews were performed to identify the risks. Additionally, questionnaire surveys were conducted, and the relative relevance index and analytic hierarchy process were utilized to assess the probabilities and impacts of these risks on time and cost. After that, a focus group discussion was conducted. According to the the risks’ probability and impacts on time and cost, the top-scoring risks include changes to the original design, budgeting inaccuracies owing to a lack of experience with sustainable building projects, additional costs incurred as a result of the use of sustainable building construction materials and equipment, inadequate or inaccurate sustainable design information, insufficient funds from clients, inadequate project planning for a sustainable building project, a tight project schedule for a sustainable building project, and insufficient identification of sustainable construction’s scope. This research contributes to the body of knowledge and practice by providing a novel integrated method for assessing risks in sustainable building construction projects in Jordan.

1. Introduction

According to the Project Management Institute [1], “Risk is an uncertain event or a condition that, if it occurs, has a positive or negative effect on one or more project objectives”. A project’s risk management process is a logical chain of procedures by which decision-makers plan, execute, and monitor actions to keep the project’s implementation within a defined time, cost, and quality [2]. Risk can be handled, minimized, shared, transferred, or accepted in every construction project but cannot be ignored [3]. Construction projects are constantly at risk of being delayed in their completion. Understanding the impact of risks is one of the most feasible ways to reduce the possibility of delays. [4]. Construction projects are susceptible to several risks due to their distinctive characteristics. Effective risk management requires a pragmatic evaluation of the many and diverse risks and the planning and implementation of effective methods [5].

However, if adequate risk management is not applied from the start of the project, this task becomes particularly complex and wasteful. Risk management in building projects still needs improvement, and a lack of information is the primary reason for this condition [6]. Risk identification is a fundamental aspect of the management of construction. Enhanced risk management strategies can mitigate the negative impacts of the identified risks on the time and cost performance [7]. Several construction projects either fail to achieve their timelines or overrun the projected costs. This situation is often seen in the context of novel projects when the delayed recognition of a significant risk of delays and exceeding the projected expenses renders a potentially lucrative project unviable [8]. Construction projects often entail considerable risk due to their reliance on anticipatory assessments of future occurrences. Insufficient identification, assessment, and implementation of risk mitigation measures during the first stages of a project may lead to the escalation of risks into conflicts, resulting in financial, temporal, and reputational losses for all stakeholders [9].

One definition of sustainable construction is effectively utilizing resources while maintaining an ecological design. Protection of the environment, social well-being, and economic success are the three pillars that must be present to attain sustainable construction standards [10]. Sustainability objectives transcend the limited scope of conventional management-oriented aspirations centered on schedule, cost, and quality, instead emphasizing construction projects’ economic, environmental, and social consequences [11]. Although the various benefits of green construction are being extensively anticipated, the potential risks related to the greening process still need to be well recognized [12].

Using green principles in construction, as opposed to conventional approaches, presents a distinct array of risks for everyone involved with the project. It is essential to accurately identify and effectively manage these risks to mitigate the occurrence of cost overruns [13]. Nevertheless, conducting a thorough risk assessment for green sustainability poses difficulties, leading to the project’s management being carried out under unclear circumstances [14]. Green buildings contribute significantly to promoting sustainable urban development on a global scale. Several types of risk are associated with green buildings that might impact the prospective consequences of the investments or services included in their design [15]. The emergence of risks in implementing green building projects has become a notable impediment to the growth of green buildings, particularly in developing countries [16].

Implementing green building projects necessitates the use of schedule risk management methods to enhance the projects’ delivery throughout the execution phase because of the heightened risks of using novel technologies and instruments. Progress-monitoring technologies and methods of implementing corrective action are crucial factors in effectively managing schedule risks with precision and efficiency [17]. Green buildings have garnered considerable interest due to their capacity to enhance sustainability and mitigate carbon emissions in the construction industry. Like conventional projects, risk management is paramount in green projects. Inadequate risk management practices may reduce labor productivity, disruptions to the schedule, and unsatisfactory project outcomes [18]. The continued expansion of green buildings has accompanied the movement toward sustainability worldwide.

On the other hand, green construction projects often include more risks than conventional building projects since they use cutting-edge technology that promotes sustainability. Consequently, risk management is more complex and essential for green building projects than traditional construction projects. This is particularly true in developing countries with fewer studies on risk management for green building projects [19].

The construction sector poses a significant challenge to the sustainability of the built environment due to its adverse effects on the environment, economy, and society. In response, green construction projects promote specific sustainability objectives, while some risks associated with such projects may lead to various adverse consequences [20]. Green building projects encounter more risks than conventional buildings due to the necessity of achieving the objectives of sustainability [21]. Innovative and sustainable buildings provide many benefits; nonetheless, it is essential to acknowledge that their design and construction entail more complexity and are accompanied by elevated levels of risk and uncertainty compared with conventional buildings [22]. Reducing resource consumption, removing pollutants, and applying life cycle costing are significant concepts of sustainable construction, which differ significantly from traditional building practices. Whole-systems thinking and early stakeholder involvement are essential to sustainable construction, which may seem risky to construction industry experts who are not accustomed to this way of thinking [23].

Despite its various positive effects on the environment, sustainable construction also poses several challenges to the professional practice of sustainable building. These challenges include awareness, actions, and impediments, notably in the Jordanian construction sector [24]. Because of the significance of sustainability in construction projects, several studies have looked at the relationship between sustainability and many areas of construction management, such as risk management [25]. Conducting risk assessments in construction projects contributes to reductions in cost, energy conservation, and on-time completion within the designated budget [26]. The Jordanian construction industry has garnered significant attention due to the risks it faces regarding delays in the schedule and cost overruns associated with construction projects. Most projects are encountering substantial delays, exceeding the original estimates for both time and expense. Significant delays are ideal for costly litigation and claims while highlighting capital projects’ economic viability [27].

Buildings are accountable for around 40% of global CO₂ emissions connected to energy and processes, 50% of all extracted materials, 33% of the water used, and 35% of the waste created. Other environmental effects include depletion of resources; contamination of the air, water, and land; and loss of biodiversity. A sustainable built environment is essential for mitigating climate catastrophes by minimizing greenhouse gas emissions and preserving the well-being of individuals, communities, and the natural environment [28].

Jordan faces challenges regarding the availability and utilization of its natural resources. These challenges are generated by its water and fossil energy resources, scarcity, and increasing demand. Jordan ranks as one of the world’s most water-poor countries. Jordan is facing significant challenges related to water scarcity. Jordan relied on imports for 93% of its energy requirements in 2018, compared with 97% in 2014, because of a scarcity of indigenous energy supplies [29,30,31]. Thus, implementing sustainable building construction projects in Jordan has many benefits and can contribute significantly to sustainable development. However, implementing sustainable buildings in Jordan is a significant challenge for architectural professionals. Several impediments undoubtedly hinder the general adoption of sustainable building methods [32].

The presence of risk in a construction project may lead to significant increases in both costs and time, which can negatively impact the project’s goals. This risk is inherent in each construction project. The negative consequences of risks in a construction project may result in financial losses for not only the projects’ owners, the contractors, and society but also the experts involved in the project [33]. Delays in completion plague most construction projects in developing countries [34].

Within the construction industry, a risk management method is necessary to minimize the adverse impacts of these risks on the building project, both collectively and individually. How risk management techniques are used and implemented has to be customized for the specific circumstances in the local context [35]. Construction companies must use risk management methods to avoid issues arising from the project’s uncertainty [36].

The construction industry is exposed to more risk and uncertainty than several other industries and has inadequate risk-tracking records. This often leads to projects being completed behind schedule, exceeding their projected budgets, and failing to meet the necessary quality and operating standards [37]. Efficient identification, assessment, and allocation of the risks may save costs and time delays [38]. Construction parties in Jordan should formulate an extensive strategy for implementing a sustainable interface-risk management approach [39].

There is a lack of research on assessing the risks associated with sustainable building construction projects in Jordan regarding their probability and impacts on cost and time. Consequently, knowledge and understanding of this significant topic are scarce. Therefore, this study aimed to answer three research questions, as follows. What are the project risks in Jordanian sustainable building construction projects? How probable are these risks to occur? What are the impacts of these risks?

Therefore, the objectives of this research can be summarized as follows:

• To identify the project risks impacting sustainable construction projects in Jordan;
• To assess the probability of the risks occurring and the cost and time impacts of each identified risk in sustainable building projects;
• To rank the risks in Jordanian sustainable construction projects on the basis of their probabilities of occurrence and impacts on time and cost.

2. Research Methods

This research was designed to develop a new method for assessing the risks in sustainable building construction projects in Jordan. For this purpose, related studies were reviewed and experts were interviewed to identify the risks in sustainable building construction projects in Jordan. The relative importance index (RII) method and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) were applied to assess the probabilities of these risks and their impacts on time and cost. Finally, the proposed method was validated by a focus group discussion.

2.1. Identification of the Risks in Sustainable Building Construction Projects

Although sustainable construction offers multiple advantages to the environment, it poses various challenges to implementing sustainable building practices, such as a lack of knowledge, limited activities, and significant barriers, especially within the Jordanian construction sector [24]. There is a scarcity of information about the identification and assessment of risks in sustainable building projects in Jordan.

According to Hulett and Preston (2000), “It’s likely that very little objective data will be available and you will have to rely on subjective data and judgments. The main approaches to developing data for a risk analysis involve interviews and research into historical data, whether collected by the company or published in research reports. Unfortunately, many project participants report that they do not maintain data from past projects, those data are not accessible or they do not highlight risks. For this reason, careful and sometimes extensive interviews are required to develop the data. Gathering information from experienced project team members and managers has benefits and pitfalls” [40].

According to several journal and conference articles, the identification of risks was based on previous research on risks in construction projects and experts’ opinions. In this research, the risks related to sustainable building construction projects were identified from previous research on the related risks in sustainable building construction projects [15,23,25,41,42,43,44].

After generating an initial list of the identified risk categories and risks obtained from previous relevant research, structured interviews were conducted to confirm that they fitted with the specific context of sustainable building projects in Jordan. Invitations were sent to industry professionals with over 10 years of experience in the local construction sector and green building. In light of their knowledge and professional experiences, the experts were requested to provide their perspectives on the significance of the identified risks to sustainable building projects in Jordan. Furthermore, they were asked to include new risks not acknowledged in existing research or to recommend excluding risks that were considered irrelevant to sustainable building projects in Jordan.

2.2. The Proposed Risk Assessment Method

The identified risks in sustainable building construction projects in Jordan were assessed using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and relative importance index (RII) methods. The AHP method assessed the time and cost impacts of the identified risks, while the RII method assessed the probabilities of their occurrence. In this research, 75 Jordanian experts were chosen on the basis of their specialized knowledge in building construction and construction management, their involvement in Jordanian green building projects, and their willingness to engage in questionnaire surveys. A diverse group of experts was selected to ensure representation from various professional backgrounds, consulting businesses, government agencies, contracting companies, and universities.

2.2.1. Assessment of the Risks’ Probabilities of Occurrence Using the RII Method

The relative importance index (RII) method has attracted increasing attention in previous studies on the management of construction risk [45,46,47,48,49]. In this research, the RII method was utilized to assess the probability of occurrence of the identified risks in a sustainable building construction project in Jordan.

The primary means of gathering data in this research was a questionnaire survey. The questionnaire comprised statements and inquiries on the respondents’ age, occupation, expertise, and perspectives on the probabilities of each identified risk in sustainable building construction projects in Jordan. This research used a 5-point Likert scale, with the response options ranging from “1: very low probability” to “5: very high probability”.

The structured questionnaires were distributed to Jordanian building project experts to gather varied viewpoints from various professions (academics, consultants, contractors, government, and non-governmental organizations (NGO)). The primary objective was to choose professionals with professional qualifications, expertise in green/sustainable building projects, and project management skills. In total, 75 questionnaires were sent to the experts. Experts from diverse backgrounds provided 48 responses, distributed as follows: 14.58% from institutions and universities, 29.17% from engineering consultancy companies, 20.83% from contracting companies, 22.92% from government organizations, and 12.5% from NGOs.

The data collected from the questionnaire survey were analyzed using the relative importance index (RII). The RII calculations were conducted for each identified risk using Equation (1). A higher value of the Relative Importance Index (RII) suggests a greater likelihood of the risk’s occurrence.

$$\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{I}=\frac{{\sum }_{i=1}^n{W}_i}{AN}$$

(1)

W is each weigh provided by the respondents, A is the highest weight, equal 5 in this study, and N is the total number of respondents.

2.2.2. Assessment of the Risks’ Impacts Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method

This research used the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to assess the impacts on time and cost of the identified risks in a sustainable building construction project in Jordan. The AHP has garnered growing interest in construction management as a method for analyzing intricate scenarios and formulating informed judgments [50]. The AHP has been used in several studies as a research methodology for assessing risks in construction projects and weighting the risks [51,52,53,54,55]. AHP has been used to assess the impacts of risks [56].

The AHP technique uses pairwise comparisons of various indicators to determine their relative relevance. It provides many hierarchy levels [57], with the highest level being the goal or main issue. The recommended nine-point scale [58,59,60] was used to compare the relative significance of two factors.

A hierarchical model was constructed on the basis of the identified risk categories and risks.

Similar to the previous section, this study primarily utilized a questionnaire survey as the primary means of data collection. Two questionnaires were developed and sent to 75 experts to assess the time and cost impacts of the identified risks in sustainable building construction projects in Jordan. The first questionnaire asked the participants to assess the risks by considering their impacts on time, and the second questionnaire asked them to assess the risks by considering their impact on cost. The two questionnaires were administered to the experts individually, and their evaluations were derived from their professional expertise.

The first section of each questionnaire comprised statements and inquiries on the respondents’ age, occupation, and expertise. In contrast, according to Jordan’s local conditions in the second section, this study applied AHP to weigh the categories of risk and the risks in sustainable building construction projects. Therefore, in the two questionnaires, the experts were asked to compare pairs of categories and risks and decide which was more critical using the 9-point Saaty scale. The two questionnaires were administered to the experts individually, with their evaluations derived from their professional expertise.

Seventy-five questionnaires were sent to the experts.

Most participants have over 5 years of professional expertise in the building construction industry in Jordan. Experts from diverse backgrounds provided 45 responses, distributed as follows: 20% from institutions and universities, 26.67% from engineering consultancy companies, 22.22% from contracting companies, 13.33% from government organizations, and 17.78% from NGOs.

The results of the comparison process were analyzed using the AHP. Following the creation of the judgment matrix, the local priorities were subsequently obtained, and the consistency of the results was assessed. The following Formulas (2) and (3) were used to compute the consistency ratios (CRs) to address inconsistencies in the ratings. These ratios were utilized to assess the extent of inconsistencies in the evaluations provided by each participant [61].

$$\mathrm{Consistency} \mathrm{Ratio}=\frac{CI}{RI}$$

(2)

$$\mathrm{Consistency}\mathrm{Index}: CI=\frac{{\lambda }_{max}-n}{n-1}$$

(3)

where ${\lambda }_{max}$ is the largest eigenvalue of the matrix and n is the number of factors compared in the questionnaire.

The consistency of the AHP judgment matrix is considered to be consistent when the CR is below 0.10. Therefore, the judgment matrices of 43 experts were chosen for this research, which had CRs below 0.1. Subsequently, individual assessments were transformed into a group judgment by computing their geometric mean. The generation of new pairwise comparison (AHP) matrices was followed by computation of the local weights. Furthermore, an assessment was conducted to determine the consistency of the group judgment. Each risk’s global weight and overall weight were determined by multiplying the local weight of each risk category by the local weight of each risk.

2.2.3. Proposed Assessment of Risks Based on Their Probabilities of Occurrence and Impacts

The collected data were analyzed using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and RII methodologies. The AHP approach was used to assess the impacts of the risks on time and cost, while the RII method was used to analyze their probabilities of occurrence. The formula for the combined risk assessment approach to evaluate the risk score is as follows

Risk = RII × AHP

(4)

where RII is the risk’s probability of occurrence, and AHP is the risk’s impact.

2.3. Validating the Results Using Focus Group Discussions

Prior research on sustainable building has shown a growing interest in using focus group discussions [62,63]. In this research, the validity of the findings and proposed method for assessing the risk in sustainable construction projects was verified using the focus group discussion methodology. Nine Jordanian construction project professionals were selected on the basis of their expertise, positions, and prior work history. The professionals involved had diverse backgrounds, including university academics, consultancies, contractors, government officials, and members of non-governmental organizations. Moreover, they had a combination of academic expertise and practical expertise in sustainable building projects.

3. Results

3.1. Identified Risks

The categories of risk and the risks in sustainable building construction projects were identified from previous relevant research [15,23,25,41,42,43,44] and based on the experts’ opinions. Four risk categories (management, organizational, technical, and external), including 23 risks, were identified.

Table 1. Risks identified in sustainable building projects.

Category	ID	Risks	References
Management	M1	Inadequate planning for sustainable building projects	[15,23,25,41,42,43]
	M2	Tight project schedule for sustainable building projects	[15,25,41,43,44]
	M3	The identification of sustainable construction’s scope is insufficient.	[15,25,41,42,43]
	M4	Inadequate selection of construction techniques in sustainable construction	[15,23,25,41,42,43]
	M5	Long lead time for sustainable and green building construction materials	[15,25,41]
	M6	Budgeting inaccuracies owing to a lack of experience with sustainable building projects	[15,23,25,41,42,43]
	M7	Additional costs incurred as a result of the use of sustainable building construction materials and equipment	[15,23,25,41,42,43]
Organizational	O1	Insufficient funds from clients	[15,23,25,41,43,44]
	O2	Clients’ reluctance to embrace new sustainability principles	[15,42,43]
	O3	The contractor has only a limited level of experience with sustainable and green practices	[23,25,41,43]
	O4	The project manager’s skills concerning a sustainable building projects are lacking	[15,25,41,43]
	O5	Shortage of skilled workers in sustainable building projects	[15,23,25,41,42,43]
	O6	Low productivity of labor in sustainable construction	[23,25,41,42]
Technical	T1	Changes to the original design	[15,23,25,41,42,43]
	T2	Inadequate or inaccurate sustainable design information	[15,23,25,41,42,43,44]
	T3	Inadequate or insufficient green specifications	[15,23,25,41,42,43,44]
	T4	Scarcity of documents and information for new green technologies	[15,25,41,42,43,44]
External	E1	The consultant has a limited level of experience with sustainable practices	[25,28,43]
	E2	Lack of availability and competence of green suppliers	[25,41,42,43,44]
	E3	Lack of availability and competence of green sub-contractors	[23,25,41,43]
	E4	Lack of sustainable building construction materials	[15,23,25,41,43,44]
	E5	Changes to the codes and regulations governing sustainable construction	[15,23,25,41,43,44]
	E6	Price increases for sustainable building construction materials	[15,23,25,41,42,43,44]

shows the identified categories of risk and the risks.

3.2. Probabilities of the Risks’ Occurrence

Structured questionnaires were developed and distributed to experts to evaluate the probability of occurrence for each identified risk (management, organizational, technical, and external) in the sustainable building construction project. The data were analyzed, and the probability of each risk’s occurrence was calculated using the relative importance index (RII).

Table 2. Probabilities of the occurrence of risks in sustainable building projects.

Category	ID	Risks	Probability (RII)
Management	M1	Inadequate planning for sustainable building projects	0.74
	M2	Tight project schedule for sustainable building projects	0.89
	M3	The identification of sustainable construction’s scope is insufficient.	0.92
	M4	Inadequate selection of construction techniques in sustainable construction	0.72
	M5	Long lead time for sustainable and green building construction materials	0.89
	M6	Budgeting inaccuracies owing to a lack of experience with sustainable building projects	0.86
	M7	Additional costs incurred as a result of the use of sustainable building construction materials and equipment	0.91
Organizational	O1	Insufficient funds from clients	0.53
	O2	Clients’ reluctance to embrace new sustainability principles	0.81
	O3	The contractor has only a limited level of experience with sustainable and green practices.	0.78
	O4	The project manager’s skills concerning a sustainable building project are lacking	0.72
	O5	Shortage of skilled workers in sustainable building projects	0.52
	O6	Low productivity of labors in sustainable construction	0.46
Technical	T1	Changes to the original design	0.73
	T2	Inadequate or inaccurate sustainable design information	0.59
	T3	Inadequate or insufficient green specifications	0.56
	T4	Scarcity of documents and information for new green technologies	0.37
External	E1	The consultant has a limited level of experience with sustainable practices	0.55
	E2	Lack of availability and competence of green suppliers	0.62
	E3	Lack of availability and competence of green sub-contractors	0.68
	E4	Lack of sustainable building construction materials	0.55
	E5	Changes to the codes and regulations governing sustainable construction	0.39
	E6	Price increases for sustainable building construction materials	0.70

shows the probabilities of each risk.

According to the results, the top 10 risks, based on their high probability of occurrence, are the insufficient identification of the scope of sustainable construction, additional costs incurred as a result of the use of sustainable building construction materials and equipment, the long lead time for sustainable and green building construction materials, a tight project schedule for the sustainable building project, budgeting inaccuracies owing to a lack of experience with sustainable building projects, the clients’ reluctance to embrace new principles of sustainability, contractors with only a limited level of experience with sustainable and green practices, inadequate planning for a sustainable building project, changes to the original design, and price increases for sustainable building construction materials.

3.3. Impacts of the Risks on Time and Cost

3.3.1. Impact of the Risks in Sustainable Building Construction Projects on Time

Table 3. AHP local and global weights of the impact of the risks in sustainable building construction projects on time.

Risk Category	Local Weight of the Category	Risk	Local Weight of the Risk	Global Weight
Project management	0.358	Inadequate planning for sustainable building projects	0.257	0.0920
		Tight project schedule for sustainable building projects	0.211	0.0755
		The identification of sustainable construction’s scope is insufficient	0.194	0.0695
		Long lead time for sustainable and green building construction materials	0.107	0.0383
		Inadequate selection of construction techniques in sustainable construction	0.121	0.0433
		Budgeting inaccuracies owing to a lack of experience with sustainable building projects	0.069	0.0247
		Additional costs incurred as a result of the use of sustainable building construction materials and equipment	0.041	0.0147
Organizational	0.284	Insufficient funds from clients	0.328	0.0932
		Clients’ reluctance to embrace new sustainability principles	0.188	0.0534
		The contractor has only a limited level of experience with sustainable and green practices.	0.202	0.0574
		The project manager’s skills concerning a sustainable building project are lacking	0.133	0.0378
		Shortage of skilled workers in sustainable building projects	0.09	0.0256
		Low productivity of labors in sustainable construction	0.059	0.0168
Technical	0.224	Changes to the original design	0.448	0.1004
		Inadequate or inaccurate sustainable design information	0.225	0.0504
		Inadequate or insufficient green specifications	0.209	0.0468
		Scarcity of documents and information for new green technologies	0.118	0.0264
External	0.135	The consultant has a limited level of experience with sustainable practices	0.313	0.0423
		Lack of availability and competence of green suppliers.	0.204	0.0275
		Lack of availability and competence of green sub-contractors	0.186	0.0251
		Lack of sustainable building construction materials	0.182	0.0246
		Changes to the codes and regulations governing sustainable construction	0.065	0.0088
		Price increases for sustainable building construction materials	0.05	0.0068

shows the local and global weights for every risk in sustainable building construction projects based on the impact of the risks on time. Multiplying the local weight of the risk category by the local weight of the risk yielded the global weight of the risk. Every risk had overall weights that matched the global weights. According to the weights’ values, the project management category was the highest-ranking category (0.358), and the external category had the lowest weight (0.135). Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the ranking of the risks in sustainable building projects based on their impacts on time.

3.3.2. Impact of the Risks in Sustainable Building Construction Projects on Cost

Table 4. AHP local and global weights of the risks in in sustainable building projects based on their impact on cost.

Risk Category	Local Weight of the Category	Risk	Local Weight of the Risks	Global Weight
Project management	0.337	Budgeting inaccuracies owing to a lack of experience with sustainable building projects	0.254	0.0856
		Additional costs incurred as a result of the use of sustainable building construction materials and equipment	0.23	0.0775
		Inadequate planning for a sustainable building project	0.175	0.0590
		The identification of sustainable construction’s scope is insufficient.	0.11	0.0371
		Tight project schedule for sustainable building projects	0.101	0.0340
		Inadequate selection of construction techniques in sustainable construction	0.077	0.0259
		Long lead time for sustainable and green building construction materials	0.053	0.0179
Organizational	0.189	Insufficient funds from clients	0.459	0.0868
		The contractor has only a limited level of experience with sustainable and green practices.	0.173	0.0327
		The project manager’s skills concerning a sustainable building project are lacking	0.146	0.0276
		Low productivity of labors in sustainable construction	0.091	0.0172
		Shortage of skilled workers in sustainable building project	0.069	0.0130
		Clients’ reluctance to embrace new sustainability principles	0.062	0.0117
Technical	0.385	Changes to the original design	0.492	0.1894
		Inadequate or insufficient green specifications	0.207	0.0797
		Inadequate or inaccurate sustainable design information	0.203	0.0782
		Scarcity of documents and information for new green technologies	0.099	0.0381
External	0.089	Price increases for sustainable building construction materials	0.405	0.0360
		Lack of availability and competence of green suppliers	0.17	0.0151
		Lack of availability and competence of green sub-contractors	0.156	0.0139
		The consultant has a limited level of experience with sustainable practices	0.121	0.0108
		Lack of sustainable building construction materials	0.1	0.0089
		Changes to the codes and regulations governing sustainable construction	0.049	0.0044

shows the local and global weights for every risk in sustainable building projects based on the impact of the risks on cost. Multiplying the local weight of the risk category by the local weight of the risk yielded the global weight of the risk. Every risk had overall weights that matched the global weights. According to the weights’ values, the technical category had the highest rank (0.385), and the external category had the lowest weight (0.089). Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the ranking of risks in sustainable building projects based on their impacts on cost.

3.3.3. Risk Assessment Based on Probabilities and Impacts

The scores of each management risk in sustainable building construction projects were calculated by multiplying the RII by the AHP.

Table 5. Scores of the risks in sustainable building projects based on their probabilities and impact on time.

Risk Category	Risk	Impact on Time (AHP Global Weight)	Probability (RII)	Score
Project management	Inadequate planning for sustainable building projects	0.092	0.740	0.068
	Tight project schedule for sustainable building projects	0.076	0.890	0.067
	The identification of sustainable construction’s scope is insufficient.	0.069	0.920	0.064
	Long lead time for sustainable and green building construction materials	0.038	0.890	0.034
	Inadequate selection of construction techniques in sustainable construction	0.043	0.720	0.031
	Budgeting inaccuracies owing to a lack of experience with sustainable building projects	0.025	0.860	0.021
	Additional costs incurred as a result of the use of sustainable building construction materials and equipment	0.015	0.910	0.013
Organizational	Insufficient funds from clients	0.093	0.533	0.050
	Clients’ reluctance to embrace new sustainability principles	0.053	0.810	0.043
	The contractor has only a limited level of experience with sustainable and green practices	0.057	0.780	0.045
	The project manager’s skills concerning a sustainable building project are lacking	0.038	0.720	0.027
	Shortage of skilled workers in sustainable building projects	0.026	0.520	0.013
	Low productivity of labors in sustainable construction	0.017	0.460	0.008
Technical	Changes to the original design	0.100	0.730	0.073
	Inadequate or inaccurate sustainable design information	0.050	0.590	0.030
	Inadequate or insufficient green specifications	0.047	0.560	0.026
	Scarcity of documents and information for new green technologies	0.026	0.374	0.010
External	The consultant has a limited level of experience with sustainable practices	0.042	0.550	0.023
	Lack of availability and competence of green suppliers	0.028	0.620	0.017
	Lack of availability and competence of green sub-contractors	0.025	0.680	0.017
	Lack of sustainable building construction materials	0.025	0.550	0.014
	Changes to the codes and regulations governing sustainable construction	0.009	0.390	0.003
	Price increases for sustainable building construction materials	0.007	0.700	0.005

and

Table 6. Scores of the risks in sustainable building project based on their probabilities and impact on cost.

Risk Category	Risk	Impact on Cost (AHP Global Weight)	Probability (RII)	Score
Project management	Budgeting inaccuracies owing to a lack of experience with sustainable building projects	0.086	0.860	0.074
	Additional costs incurred as a result of the use of sustainable building construction materials and equipment	0.078	0.910	0.071
	Inadequate planning for a sustainable building project	0.059	0.740	0.044
	The identification of sustainable construction’s scope is insufficient.	0.037	0.920	0.034
	Tight project schedule for sustainable building projects	0.034	0.890	0.030
	Inadequate selection of construction techniques in sustainable construction	0.026	0.720	0.019
	Long lead time for sustainable and green building construction materials	0.018	0.890	0.016
Organizational	Insufficient funds from clients	0.087	0.530	0.046
	The contractor has only a limited level of experience with sustainable and green practices	0.033	0.780	0.026
	The project manager’s skills concerning a sustainable building project are lacking	0.028	0.720	0.020
	Low productivity of labors in sustainable construction	0.017	0.460	0.008
	Shortage of skilled workers in sustainable building projects	0.013	0.520	0.007
	Clients’ reluctance to embrace new sustainability principles	0.012	0.810	0.009
Technical	Changes to the original design	0.189	0.730	0.138
	Inadequate or insufficient green specifications	0.080	0.560	0.045
	Inadequate or inaccurate sustainable design information	0.078	0.590	0.046
	Scarcity of documents and information for new green technologies	0.038	0.374	0.014
External	Price increases for sustainable building construction materials	0.036	0.700	0.025
	Lack of availability and competence of green sub-suppliers	0.015	0.620	0.009
	Lack of availability and competence of green sub-contractors	0.014	0.680	0.009
	The consultant has a limited level of experience with sustainable practices	0.011	0.550	0.006
	Lack of sustainable building construction materials	0.009	0.550	0.005
	Changes to the codes and regulations governing sustainable construction	0.004	0.390	0.002

show the scores of risks in sustainable building projects based on their probabilities and the impacts on time and cost. “Change to the original design” had the highest risk score.

3.4. Validation of the Proposed Method

The focus group was presented with the suggested method for assessing the risks in sustainable building construction projects in Jordan. The experts offered their opinions about the suggested method’s simplicity or complexity. They expressed their views about the strength and suitability of the proposed method and the specific circumstances, context, and environment in Jordan. All nine participants in the focus group discussion unanimously endorsed the proposed method for its simplicity and compatibility with Jordan’s construction industry and conditions.

Furthermore, they agreed that the suggested method enhances the understanding of risk management in sustainable building construction projects in Jordan. The research methodology applied to develop the suggested method for assessing the risks in sustainable building construction projects was agreed upon by eight experts, accounting for 88.89% of the total. The agreement was based on the method’s reliability. Therefore, this may guide academics and policymakers globally in creating novel assessment methods for different construction projects (such as road projects, infrastructure projects, and conventional residential construction) in Jordan or any other country. Nevertheless, one participant, who is an expert, raised concerns over the feasibility of using this research method. Hence, the proposed method was verified. Out of the eight participants in the focus group, 88.89% agreed that the suggested strategy would be helpful for managing sustainable building projects and overcoming obstacles to constructing sustainable buildings in Jordan. Only one participant expressed uncertainty. Therefore, the proposed method of assessing the risks in sustainable building construction projects in Jordan was verified via the focus group discussion.

4. Discussion

Compared with the proposed method in this research, no similar method exists for identifying and assessing project risks, particularly for sustainable building construction projects in Jordan, and there is a scarcity of information on the subject. The existing assessment method does not address assessments of the risks in Jordan’s sustainable building construction projects, particularly regarding their probability and impact on cost and time. This constraint has limited the ability to compare the proposed method in this research with other existing methods or tools in Jordan.

However, there are similarities between the significant risks in sustainable construction projects in this research and in other previous studies worldwide. The results of this research showed that the top five risk scores in a sustainable building project in Jordan based on their probabilities of occurrence and impact on cost were “Changes to the original design”, “Budgeting inaccuracies owing to a lack of experience with sustainable building projects”, “Additional costs incurred as a result of the use of sustainable building construction materials and equipment”, “Inadequate or inaccurate sustainable design information”, and “Insufficient funds from clients”, and the top five risk scores in a sustainable building project in Jordan based on their probabilities of occurrence and impact on time were “Changes to the original design”, “Inadequate planning for a sustainable building project”, “Tight project schedule for a sustainable building projects”, “The identification of the scope of sustainable construction is insufficient”, and “Insufficient funds from clients”.

In the context of the United Arab Emirates, research conducted by El-Sayegh et al. (2018) [41] examined and evaluated the potential risks associated with green buildings in the United Arab Emirates. The findings indicated that the five primary risk factors identified were “Insufficient funding from clients”, “Inadequate or inaccurate information regarding sustainable design”, “Design modifications”, “Unreasonable tight timelines for sustainable construction”, and “Inadequate definition of the scope of sustainable construction”.

Comparably, Qin et al. (2016) [64] evaluated and ranked the risks associated with the life cycle of GB projects in China, considering their probability of occurrence and the severity of the effects. The results of the study indicated that the five primary risk factors identified by all participants were as follows: “Government bureaucracy and complex approval processes”, “Insufficient maintenance of green buildings”, “Limited experience in green building design”, “Inexperienced property management during the trial operation phase”, and “Inaccurate orientation of the project’s green objectives”.

Notably, Hwang et al. (2017) [42] conducted a research study in Singapore to assess the risk factors associated with green commercial building projects. The findings revealed that the top five critical risk factors in green commercial building projects were “inflation”, “currency and interest rate volatility worsened by the import of green materials”, “durability of green materials”, “damages caused by human error”, and “shortage of green materials”.

Similarly, Ismael and Shealy (2018) [23] examined the risk variables linked to green projects in Kuwait. Their research found that in the context of Kuwait, the most significant top five risks identified were the “High costs of sustainable materials and equipment”, “Contractor’s lack of experience with sustainable construction”, “Lack of practical experience”, “Lack of public awareness”, and “High initial sustainable construction costs”.

Even if the ranks of these risks vary, the top five risks in sustainable construction projects in several contexts, including Singapore, China, Jordan, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, are comparable. The differences in the rankings may be caused mainly by the location of the sustainable building project and the specific local conditions in each country.

5. Conclusions

The risks associated with implementing sustainable building construction projects provide a substantial obstacle to the global expansion of sustainable construction. Adopting sustainable building practices is a relatively new development in Jordan’s construction industry. However, the adoption of sustainability in the construction industry has been dramatically restricted, mainly owing to many impediments, including the related risks. Therefore, it is essential to thoroughly understand the risks associated with sustainable construction projects in Jordan. Hence, this research aimed to identify and assess the potential risks associated with sustainable building construction projects in Jordan.

This research identified a wide range of risks in sustainable building construction projects in Jordan, each with different probabilities of occurring and levels of impact. In addition, this study used the RII and AHP techniques to assess the score of each identified risk related to implementing sustainable building construction projects in Jordan. The RII and AHP methodologies assessed the probability and impact of risks on the schedule and cost.

Twenty-three risks were identified and assessed on the basis of the probabilities and impacts of each of the identified risks. The top five risk scores in a sustainable building project in Jordan, according to their probabilities of occurrence and impacts on time are changes to the original design (0.073), inadequate planning for a sustainable building project (0.068), a tight project schedule for the sustainable building project (0.067), insufficient identification of sustainable construction’s scope is insufficient (0.064), insufficient funds from clients (0.05), and the clients’ reluctance to embrace new principles of sustainability (0.045). The top five risk scores in a sustainable building project in Jordan based on their probabilities of occurrence and impacts on cost are changes to the original design (0.138), budgeting inaccuracies owing to lack of experience with sustainable building projects (0.074), additional costs incurred as a result of the use of sustainable building construction materials and equipment (0.071), inadequate or inaccurate sustainable design information (0.0461), and insufficient funds from clients (0.0459).

This research may provide valuable contributions to both practical applications and the existing body of knowledge. Project managers, designers, government officials, developers, and other stakeholders in the construction industry must gather information and identify the specific project risks that should be prioritized to maximize the successful completion of sustainable building construction projects. Therefore, professionals in the construction sector in Jordan can use the method proposed in this research. This study offers valuable insights and guidance that might assist t in identifying and assessing the risks in sustainable construction projects in Jordan. The proposed method can be helpful to stakeholders, including the government, developers, and other project practitioners. Furthermore, the suggested method will guide researchers in Jordan and worldwide in creating novel methods for assessing a project’s risks or updating the current risk assessment methods for sustainable building or other construction projects. The results of this study have the potential to aid in the development of new methods of assessing a project’s risk and enhance the management of projects’ risk in Jordan and other countries.

While the research accomplished the stated goals outlined in the introduction, it had limitations. Firstly, this research was limited explicitly to sustainable building construction projects in Jordan. Nevertheless, the results may serve as a guideline for creating new methods for assessing the risk of conventional building construction projects and other construction projects in Jordan or any other country. Secondly, it is essential to note that the results of every stage of this study may have varied slightly depending on the number of experts who participated in each stage. Thirdly, there is a lack of an existing method for identifying and assessing risks specifically for sustainable building construction projects in Jordan, and there is a scarcity of information on this topic. The current assessment methods do not address risk assessments for sustainable building construction projects in Jordan, specifically regarding their probabilities and impacts on cost and time. This limitation has hindered the possibility of comparing the proposed method in this study with other existing methods or tools.

It is recommended that the identified risks and their assessment be regularly reviewed and updated in research, since the construction industry in Jordan may undergo significant changes over the years. The developed method is especially suited to assessing the risks associated with sustainable building construction projects in Jordan. Therefore, developing a similar method for assessing the risks in traditional building construction projects in Jordan is advisable. This study specifically focused on building construction projects. Future research needs to be conducted on other types of construction projects, such as infrastructure or road projects, within the context of Jordan or other countries worldwide.