IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v24y2022i11d10.1007_s10668-021-01963-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Life-cycle sustainability risk management a multi-stakeholder approach: the case of Damascus post-war residential projects

Author

Listed:
  • Lina Adib Khaddour

    (Nottingham Trent University
    The University of Warwick
    The International University of Science and Technology (IUST))

Abstract

Post-war Residential Re-construction Projects (PRRP) are widely complex and have significant risks. It is necessary to address sustainability risks in PRRP in order to respond to the war disastrous consequences. Thus, reducing sustainability risks associated with PRRP Life Cycle (LC) phases is of absolute importance for each stakeholder to achieve sustainability within PRRP process and performance. How to effectively get different participants to manage risks in the context of PRRP LC is decisive to the project sustainability objectives. This study aims to identify how sustainability risk factors change during PRRP LC phases and how LC Sustainability Risk Management (LCSRM) is perceived by PRRP primary stakeholders. Data were collected through survey and interviews with different stakeholder groups in Damascus PRRP. The findings revealed the top five risks of: ‘Poor constructability’ (with a score of 0.44 at the construction phase), ‘Delays due to poor contract management’ (with a score of 0.44 at the pre-construction phase), ‘Lack of availability of green materials and equipment’ (with a score of 0.43 at the construction phase), ‘Pollution’ (with a score of 0.4 at the construction phase) and ‘Being fined for failing to meet the project objectives’ (with a score of 0.36 at the construction phase). The majority of risk responses were found to be more effective in the planning, design, pre-construction and construction stages. LCSRM is presented in a participatory manner involving key stakeholders. Practical recommendations for developer, consultants, designers, contractors, project managers and regulators were presented. The study’s LCSRM approach offers stakeholders a novel approach to customize their own list of sustainability risks. The main benefit of LCSRM is in shifting construction management control from input oriented to a more output oriented one in order to respond to unforeseen risks encompassing PRRP performance, which often deviated PRRP sustainability objectives from reality.

Suggested Citation

  • Lina Adib Khaddour, 2022. "Life-cycle sustainability risk management a multi-stakeholder approach: the case of Damascus post-war residential projects," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(11), pages 12756-12786, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:24:y:2022:i:11:d:10.1007_s10668-021-01963-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-021-01963-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-021-01963-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-021-01963-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chaminda Wijethilake & Tek Lama, 2019. "Sustainability core values and sustainability risk management: Moderating effects of top management commitment and stakeholder pressure," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 143-154, January.
    2. Seyit Ali Erdogan & Jonas Šaparauskas & Zenonas Turskis, 2019. "A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model to Choose the Best Option for Sustainable Construction Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, April.
    3. Dalya Ismael & Tripp Shealy, 2018. "Sustainable Construction Risk Perceptions in the Kuwaiti Construction Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maher Awad Abuhussain, 2024. "Integrated Fuzzy Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution and Emotional Artificial Neural Network Model for Comprehensive Risk Prioritization in Green Construction Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-23, November.

    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. Mustafa S. Al-Tekreeti & Salwa M. Beheiry & Vian Ahmed, 2022. "Commitment Indicators for Tracking Sustainable Design Decisions in Construction Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-16, May.
    2. Mohammed Belal Uddin & Bilkis Akhter, 2022. "Investigating the relationship between top management commitment, supply chain collaboration, and sustainable firm performance in the agro-processing supply chain," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 1399-1417, December.
    3. Venugopal Gopalakrishna‐Remani & Kyung‐Ah ( Kay) Byun & D. Harold Doty, 2022. "The impact of employees' perceptions about top management engagement on sustainability development efforts and firm performance," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(7), pages 2964-2977, November.
    4. Li Bai & F. Javier Sendra Garcia & Arunodaya Raj Mishra, 2022. "RETRACTED ARTICLE: Adoption of the sustainable circular supply chain under disruptions risk in manufacturing industry using an integrated fuzzy decision-making approach," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 743-759, December.
    5. Mustafa S. Al-Tekreeti & Salwa M. Beheiry & Vian Ahmed, 2021. "A Framework for Assessing Commitment Indicators in Sustainable Development Decisions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-21, May.
    6. Ji-Wei Zhu & Li-Nan Zhou & Liang Li & Wajhat Ali, 2020. "Decision Simulation of Construction Project Delivery System under the Sustainable Construction Project Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-21, March.
    7. Khan, Naveed R. & Ameer, Farah & Bouncken, Ricarda B. & Covin, Jeffrey G., 2023. "Corporate sustainability entrepreneurship: The role of green entrepreneurial orientation and organizational resilience capacity for green innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    8. Fokko J. Eller & Michael M. Gielnik & Hendrik Wimmer & Corinna Thölke & Sara Holzapfel & Silke Tegtmeier & Jantje Halberstadt, 2020. "Identifying business opportunities for sustainable development: Longitudinal and experimental evidence contributing to the field of sustainable entrepreneurship," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 1387-1403, March.
    9. Kaveh Asiaei & Ruzita Jusoh & Omid Barani & Arash Asiaei, 2022. "How does green intellectual capital boost performance? The mediating role of environmental performance measurement systems," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 1587-1606, May.
    10. Lorenzo Leto & Diletta Vito, 2023. "Il contributo dei sistemi di RM e PM alla sostenibilit? integrata: il caso B&C Speakers," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2023(3), pages 113-139.
    11. Mateusz Trzeciak, 2021. "Sustainable Risk Management in IT Enterprises," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-20, July.
    12. Małgorzata Fedorczak-Cisak & Anna Kotowicz & Elżbieta Radziszewska-Zielina & Bartłomiej Sroka & Tadeusz Tatara & Krzysztof Barnaś, 2020. "Multi-Criteria Optimisation of an Experimental Complex of Single-Family Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-30, March.
    13. Shashi & Piera Centobelli & Roberto Cerchione & Myriam Ertz, 2020. "Managing supply chain resilience to pursue business and environmental strategies," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 1215-1246, March.
    14. Ricardo P. F. Ferrarez & Claudia G. B. do Valle & Jeferson C. Alvarenga & Fabricio da C. Dias & Diego A. Vasco & André L. A. Guedes & Christine K. Chinelli & Assed N. Haddad & Carlos A. P. Soares, 2023. "Key Practices for Incorporating Sustainability in Project Management from the Perspective of Brazilian Professionals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-21, May.
    15. Soo-Yong Kim & Le Dinh Thuc, 2020. "Sustainable Location Selection for Investing in Public–Private Partnership Infrastructure Projects: From a Developing Country’s Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-19, July.
    16. Gizem ARAS BEGER, 2024. "How Competing Institutional Logics Affect Corporate Social Responsibility Benefits: the Mediating Role of Paradox Mindset and Multi-Stakeholders," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 1913-1951, March.
    17. Mir Danial Mousavi & Mir Damoun Mousavi, 2023. "The Effect of Stakeholder’s Pressure on firm Market Performance and the Mediating Role of Corporate Responsibility, Sustainable Supplier Selection, and Marketing Capability," Corporate Reputation Review, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 26(3), pages 179-191, August.
    18. Magdalena Rzemieniak & Monika Wawer, 2021. "Employer Branding in the Context of the Company’s Sustainable Development Strategy from the Perspective of Gender Diversity of Generation Z," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-24, January.
    19. Kuldeep Singh & Madhvendra Misra & Jitendra Yadav, 2021. "Corporate social responsibility and financial inclusion: Evaluating the moderating effect of income," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(5), pages 1263-1274, July.
    20. Mehdi Keshavarz-Ghorabaee & Maghsoud Amiri & Mohammad Hashemi-Tabatabaei & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Arturas Kaklauskas, 2020. "A New Decision-Making Approach Based on Fermatean Fuzzy Sets and WASPAS for Green Construction Supplier Evaluation," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-24, December.

    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:spr:endesu:v:24:y:2022:i:11:d:10.1007_s10668-021-01963-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.