Ranking and analysing the risks of green building development and construction using the combination of hierarchical and fuzzy analysis techniques

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 M.Sc. of Engineering and Construction Management ,Faculty of Engineering. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

2 Associated professor, Faculty of Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

Green building is considered as an effective method for the interaction between the rapid development of construction, conservation of resources with the least impact on the environment, and the distribution of renewable and clean energy. While green building has such potential benefits, the risks associated with green buildings have been less evaluated. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to identify and rank the upcoming risks of the development and construction of green buildings in Iran, and to determine the importance of the four limitations of the project in the most effective identified risks and to prioritize the limitations in green building projects. In this research, 10 risks were identified including: economic, contractual, managerial, educational, legal, industry, functional, market, environmental and safety, by examining and evaluating the issue of the development and construction of green buildings in scientific and research sources. Then, by designing and compiling the questionnaire tool, the research objectives were evaluated in two stages. In the first step, the identified risks were ranked using the Analytical Hierarchy (AHP) method and the most effective risks were determined. During the second stage, with the aim of determining the importance of the four limitations of project management and the impact of the most effective risks on the four limitations, it was evaluated and determined by the Fuzzy Hierarchy Analysis (FAHP) method. The results of the first stage showed that the five economic, market, performance, industry and safety risks are the most effective risks for the development and construction of green buildings. The results of the second phase showed that the importance of quality limitation was the first priority, and after that, cost, time, and work area were placed in the next priorities.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

[1] Bribián, I. Z., Capilla, A. V., & Usón, A. A. (2011). Life cycle assessment of building materials: Comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Building and Environment, 46(5), 1133-1140.
[2] Sinha, A., Gupta, R., & Kutnar, A. (2013). Sustainable Development and Green Buildings. Drvna industrija, 64(1), 45-53.
[3] Bahaudin, A. Y., Elias, E. M., & Saifudin, A. M. (2014). A comparison of the green building's criteria. E3S Web of Conferences,
[4] Poveda, C. A., & Young, R. (2015). Potential benefits of developing and implementing environmental and sustainability rating systems: Making the case for the need of diversification. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 4(1), 1-11.
[5] Yang, R. J., & Zou, P. X. (2014). Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green building projects: A social network model. Building and Environment, 73, 208-222.
[6] Council, U. G. B. (2009). The Legal Risk in’Building Green’: New Wine in Old Bottles?. USGBC Panel Discussion White Paper.
[7] Guide, P. (2004). A guide to the project management body of knowledge. Project Management Institute,
[8] Rose, K. H. (2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)—Fifth Edition. Project management journal, 44(3).
[9] Gajewska, E., & Ropel, M. (2011). Risk Management Practices in a Construction Project–a case study. Swedia, Chalmers University of Technology.
[10] Zou, P. X., & Couani, P. (2012). Managing risks in green building supply chain. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 8(2), 143-158.
[11] Hwang, B. G., Zhao, X., See, Y. L., & Zhong, Y. (2015). Addressing risks in green retrofit projects: The case of Singapore. Project Management Journal, 46(4), 76-89.
[12] Qin, X., Mo, Y., & Jing, L. (2016). Risk perceptions of the life-cycle of green buildings in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 126, 148-158.
[13] Zhao, X., Hwang, B.-G., & Gao, Y. (2016). A fuzzy synthetic evaluation approach for risk assessment: a case of Singapore's green projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 115, 203-213.
[14] Tao, X., & Xiang-Yuan, S. (2018). Identification of Risk in Green Building Projects based on the Perspective of Sustainability. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 439(3), 032053.
[15] Chan, A. P. C., Darko, A., Olanipekun, A. O., & Ameyaw, E. E. (2018). Critical barriers to green building technologies adoption in developing countries: The case of Ghana. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 1067-1079.
[16] Ahmad, T., Aibinu, A. A., & Stephan, A. (2019). Managing green building development – A review of current state of research and future directions. Building and Environment, 155, 83-104.
[17] Zhang, X., & Mohandes, S. R. (2020). Occupational Health and Safety in green building construction projects: A holistic Z-numbers-based risk management framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 275, 122788.
[18] Guan, L., Abbasi, A., & Ryan, M. J. (2020). Analyzing green building project risk interdependencies using Interpretive Structural Modeling. Journal of Cleaner Production, 256, 120372.
[19] Abdul-Malak, M.-A. U., & Khalife, F. G. (2020). Managing the Risks of Third-Party Sustainability Certification Failures. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 12, 04520027.
[20] Zeng, J., An, M., & Smith, N. J. (2007). Application of a fuzzy based decision making methodology to construction project risk assessment. International journal of project management, 25(6), 589-600.
[21] Zhang, G., & Zou, P. X. (2007). Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process risk assessment approach for joint venture construction projects in China. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(10), 771-779.
[22] Askari, M., Shokrizadeh, H. R., & Ghane, N. (2014). A Fuzzy AHP Model in Risk Ranking. European Journal of Business and Management, 6(14), 194-202.
[23] Roghanian, E., & Mojibian, F. (2015). Using fuzzy FMEA and fuzzy logic in project risk management. Iranian Journal of Management Studies, 8(3), 373-395.
[24] Yuliatti, M. M. E., & Hardi Purba, H. (2021). Construction Project Risk Analysis Based on Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (F-AHP): A Literature Review. Advance Researches in Civil Engineering, 3(3), 1-20.
[25] Cronbach, L.J., (1951).  Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,16(3), 334-297.
[26] Godsipour, H., (2000). Analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Amirkabir University of Technology Publishing Center.
[27] Van Laarhoven, P., & Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory. Fuzzy sets and Systems, 11(1-3), 229-241.
[28] Chang, D.-Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European journal of operational research, 95(3), 649-655.
[29] Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Information and control. Fuzzy sets, 8(3), 338-353.
[30] Srichetta, P., & Thurachon, W. (2012). Applying fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to evaluate and select product of notebook computers. International Journal of Modeling and Optimization, 2(2), 168.
[31] Gogus, O., & Boucher, T. O. (1998). Strong transitivity, rationality and weak monotonicity in fuzzy pairwise comparisons. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 94(1), 133-144.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 03 May 2023
  • Revise Date: 13 June 2023
  • Accept Date: 17 June 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics