IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v13y2025i2p278-d1568488.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prioritization of Preventive Measures: A Multi-Criteria Approach to Risk Mitigation in Road Infrastructure Projects

Author

Listed:
  • Aleksandar Senić

    (Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Marija Ivanović

    (Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Momčilo Dobrodolac

    (Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Zoran Stojadinović

    (Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia)

Abstract

Risk management in construction projects is a critical process aimed at identifying, evaluating, and mitigating potential risks that could impact project performance. Preventive measures play a central role in this process, serving as proactive strategies to minimize the likelihood and impact of risks on project outcomes. This study involved 37 experts from multidisciplinary fields related to road infrastructure, ensuring a diverse and comprehensive perspective on risk evaluation and prevention. The DELPHI method was employed to systematically define key risks and their corresponding preventive measures, providing a structured foundation for further analysis. The experts evaluated 302 preventive measures across 56 risks using 4 predefined criteria: implementation costs, time required for implementation, implementation complexity, and probability of success. A multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach was then applied to analyze these evaluations, enabling the prioritization of preventive measures and the allocation of resources toward the most effective strategies. Additionally, fuzzy logic was employed to analyze and validate the results, providing a complementary approach to the MCDM methodology. The results of this research provide a robust framework for risk management, offering practical guidance for decision makers in the construction industry. By integrating expert judgment, systematic evaluation, and advanced analytical methods, this study delivers actionable insights and establishes a reliable methodology for enhancing the effectiveness of risk mitigation in road infrastructure projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Aleksandar Senić & Marija Ivanović & Momčilo Dobrodolac & Zoran Stojadinović, 2025. "Prioritization of Preventive Measures: A Multi-Criteria Approach to Risk Mitigation in Road Infrastructure Projects," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-32, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:13:y:2025:i:2:p:278-:d:1568488
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/13/2/278/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/13/2/278/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nevena Simić & Nenad Ivanišević & Đorđe Nedeljković & Aleksandar Senić & Zoran Stojadinović & Marija Ivanović, 2023. "Early Highway Construction Cost Estimation: Selection of Key Cost Drivers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-20, March.
    2. J. H. M. Tah & V. Carr, 2000. "A proposal for construction project risk assessment using fuzzy logic," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 491-500.
    3. Chisomo Kapatsa & Neema Kavishe & Godwin Maro & Sam Zulu, 2023. "The Identification of Sustainability Assessment Indicators for Road Infrastructure Projects in Tanzania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-15, October.
    4. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    5. Aleksandar Senić & Momčilo Dobrodolac & Zoran Stojadinović, 2024. "Development of Risk Quantification Models in Road Infrastructure Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-20, September.
    6. Keeney,Ralph L. & Raiffa,Howard, 1993. "Decisions with Multiple Objectives," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521438834, January.
    7. Aleksandar Senić & Momčilo Dobrodolac & Zoran Stojadinović, 2024. "Predicting Extension of Time and Increasing Contract Price in Road Infrastructure Projects Using a Sugeno Fuzzy Logic Model," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-22, September.
    8. Thomas L. Saaty & Luis G. Vargas, 2013. "Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, edition 2, number 978-1-4614-7279-7.
    9. Jinhyuk Lee & Donghyuk Jung & Cheolmin Baek & Deoksoon An, 2023. "An Analytical Study Predicting Future Conditions and Application Strategies of Concrete Bridge Pavement Based on Pavement Management System Database," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-16, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    2. Karasakal, Esra & Aker, Pınar, 2017. "A multicriteria sorting approach based on data envelopment analysis for R&D project selection problem," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 79-92.
    3. Aleksandar Senić & Momčilo Dobrodolac & Zoran Stojadinović, 2024. "Predicting Extension of Time and Increasing Contract Price in Road Infrastructure Projects Using a Sugeno Fuzzy Logic Model," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-22, September.
    4. Schneider, Frank, 2008. "Multiple criteria decision making in application layer networks," Bayreuth Reports on Information Systems Management 36, University of Bayreuth, Chair of Information Systems Management.
    5. Yamei Wang & Zhongwu Li & Zhenghong Tang & Guangming Zeng, 2011. "A GIS-Based Spatial Multi-Criteria Approach for Flood Risk Assessment in the Dongting Lake Region, Hunan, Central China," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(13), pages 3465-3484, October.
    6. Yeh, Chung-Hsing & Chang, Yu-Hern, 2009. "Modeling subjective evaluation for fuzzy group multicriteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(2), pages 464-473, April.
    7. Wolfgang Ossadnik & Stefanie Schinke & Ralf H. Kaspar, 2016. "Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 421-457, March.
    8. Morteza Alaeddini & Masoud Mir-Amini, 2020. "Integrating COBIT with a hybrid group decision-making approach for a business-aligned IT roadmap formulation," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 63-94, June.
    9. KARRI PASANEN & MIKKO KURTTILA & JOUNI PYKÄlÄINEN & JYRKI KANGAS & PEKKA LESKINEN, 2005. "Mesta — Non-Industrial Private Forest Owners' Decision-Support Environment For The Evaluation Of Alternative Forest Plans Over The Internet," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(04), pages 601-620.
    10. Jochen Wulf, 2020. "Development of an AHP hierarchy for managing omnichannel capabilities: a design science research approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(1), pages 39-68, April.
    11. Rachele Corticelli & Margherita Pazzini & Cecilia Mazzoli & Claudio Lantieri & Annarita Ferrante & Valeria Vignali, 2022. "Urban Regeneration and Soft Mobility: The Case Study of the Rimini Canal Port in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-27, November.
    12. Nina Almasifar & Tülay Özdemir Canbolat & Milad Akhavan & Roberto Alonso González-Lezcano, 2021. "Proposing a New Methodology for Monument Conservation “SCOPE MANAGEMENT” by the Use of an Analytic Hierarchy Process Project Management Institute System and the ICOMOS Burra Charter," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-13, November.
    13. David Staš & Radim Lenort & Pavel Wicher & David Holman, 2015. "Green Transport Balanced Scorecard Model with Analytic Network Process Support," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-19, November.
    14. Gerd Gigerenzer, 1997. "Bounded Rationality: Models of Fast and Frugal Inference," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 133(II), pages 201-218, June.
    15. Jitendar Kumar Khatri & Bhimaraya Metri, 2016. "SWOT-AHP Approach for Sustainable Manufacturing Strategy Selection: A Case of Indian SME," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 17(5), pages 1211-1226, October.
    16. Shuang Liu & Kirsten Maclean & Cathy Robinson, 2019. "A cost-effective framework to prioritise stakeholder participation options," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 221-241, November.
    17. Khaled, Oumaima & Minoux, Michel & Mousseau, Vincent & Michel, Stéphane & Ceugniet, Xavier, 2018. "A multi-criteria repair/recovery framework for the tail assignment problem in airlines," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 137-151.
    18. Zhang, Tianyu & Dong, Peiwu & Zeng, Yongchao & Ju, Yanbing, 2022. "Analyzing the diffusion of competitive smart wearable devices: An agent-based multi-dimensional relative agreement model," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 90-105.
    19. Smith, Chris M. & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 403-416.
    20. Anirban Basu & William Dale & Arthur Elstein & David Meltzer, 2009. "A linear index for predicting joint health‐states utilities from single health‐states utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 403-419, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:13:y:2025:i:2:p:278-:d:1568488. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.