IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i22p12645-d680077.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Qualitative Analysis of Risks Affecting the Delivery of Land Surveying Project Activities

Author

Listed:
  • Usama Issa

    (Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Taif University, P.O. Box 11099, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia)

  • Muwaffaq Alqurashi

    (Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Taif University, P.O. Box 11099, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia)

  • Ibrahim Salama

    (Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Taif University, P.O. Box 11099, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia)

Abstract

Land surveying projects (LSPs) suffer from the effects of many risk factors on the time and accuracy of these projects. Using field surveys, the main objective of this study was identifying the major activities and risk factors associated with LSPs’ execution, as well as assessing and analyzing the effects of the risk factors on the LSPs’ time and accuracy. Furthermore, the study aimed to classify and determine the responsibility of each risk factor and evaluate the responsibilities. Four main activities were categorized and presented, including reconnaissance works, planning works, data collection works, and data adjustment works. Moreover, forty-three risk factors that control the main activities and affect the time and accuracy of LSPs were recognized. The probabilities of occurrences for the risk factors and impacts on the time and accuracy of LSPs were determined as well as their combined effects. Key risk factors that had high threats on LSPs and affect time and accuracy were highlighted as the most critical risk factors. Many correlations were determined among risk factors affecting LSPs’ activity groups and their various effects on time and accuracy. The responsibilities of the surveying crew (chief, surveyor, assistance, office engineer) for each risk factors were correspondingly defined. The results showed that “Data collection works” is considered the riskiest activity group in LSPs and most of the key risk factors belonged to this group. Around 25% of the LSPs face time overrun and do not meet the required specifications. On the other hand, the surveyor was found to be responsible for most of the risk factors and the office engineer was signified by the lowest responsibility, while the responsibilities for most risk factors were single responsibility and few were shared by only dual responsibility.

Suggested Citation

  • Usama Issa & Muwaffaq Alqurashi & Ibrahim Salama, 2021. "Qualitative Analysis of Risks Affecting the Delivery of Land Surveying Project Activities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-20, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:22:p:12645-:d:680077
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12645/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12645/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chen, Fangyu & Wang, Hongwei & Xu, Gangyan & Ji, Hongchang & Ding, Shanlei & Wei, Yongchang, 2020. "Data-driven safety enhancing strategies for risk networks in construction engineering," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    2. A. V. Thomas & Satyanarayana Kalidindi & K. Ananthanarayanan, 2003. "Risk perception analysis of BOT road project participants in India," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 393-407.
    3. Usama Issa & Ibrahim Sharaky & Mamdooh Alwetaishi & Ashraf Balabel & Amal Shamseldin & Ahmed Abdelhafiz & Mohammed Al-Surf & Mosleh Al-Harthi & Medhat M. A. Osman, 2021. "Developing and Applying a Model for Evaluating Risks Affecting Greening Existing Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-21, June.
    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. Fu, Lipeng & Wang, Xueqing & Zhao, Heng & Li, Mengnan, 2022. "Interactions among safety risks in metro deep foundation pit projects: An association rule mining-based modeling framework," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    2. Ji, Chenyi & Su, Xing & Qin, Zhongfu & Nawaz, Ahsan, 2022. "Probability Analysis of Construction Risk based on Noisy-or Gate Bayesian Networks," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    3. Wang, Wenhao & Wang, Yanhui & Wang, Guangxing & Li, Man & Jia, Limin, 2023. "Identification of the critical accident causative factors in the urban rail transit system by complex network theory," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 610(C).
    4. Henry J Liu & Peter ED Love & Jim Smith & Michael CP Sing & Jane Matthews, 2018. "Evaluation of public–private partnerships: A life-cycle Performance Prism for ensuring value for money," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(6), pages 1133-1153, September.
    5. Chandan Kumar, 2018. "Role of bidding method and risk allocation in the performance of public private partnership (PPP) projects," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2018-013, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    6. Sy, Do Tien & Likhitruangsilp, Veerasak & Onishi, Masamitsu & Nguyen, Phong Thanh, 2016. "Different Perceptions of Concern Factors for Strategic Investment of The Private Sector in Public-Private Partnership Transportation Projects," MPRA Paper 96581, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Abraham Park & Chen Yu Chang, 2013. "Impacts of Construction Events on the Project Equity Value of the Channel Tunnel Project," ERES eres2013_97, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
    8. Hongyan Chen & Ruwen Qin, 2012. "Real options as an incentive scheme for managing revenues in transportation infrastructure projects," International Journal of Revenue Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 6(1/2), pages 77-101.
    9. Yiannis Xenidis & Demos Angelides, 2005. "The financial risks in build-operate-transfer projects," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(4), pages 431-441.
    10. Lee, Junho & Kim, Ikjun & Kim, Hyomin & Kang, Juyoung, 2021. "SWOT-AHP analysis of the Korean satellite and space industry: Strategy recommendations for development," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    11. Shubham Gupta & Raghav Khanna & Pranay Kohli & Sarthak Agnihotri & Umang Soni & M. Asjad, 2023. "Risk evaluation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure using Fuzzy AHP – a case study in India," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 245-258, March.
    12. Fatemeh Mostofi & Vedat Toğan & Yunus Emre Ayözen & Onur Behzat Tokdemir, 2022. "Construction Safety Risk Model with Construction Accident Network: A Graph Convolutional Network Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-18, November.
    13. Fleta-Asín, Jorge & Muñoz, Fernando, 2020. "How does risk transference to private partner impact on public-private partnerships’ success? Empirical evidence from developing economies," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    14. Robert Osei-Kyei & Albert P. C. Chan & Yao Yu & Chuan Chen & Yongjian Ke & Bashir Tijani, 2019. "Social Responsibility Initiatives for Public-Private Partnership Projects: A Comparative Study between China and Ghana," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-14, March.
    15. Zhang, Hengqi & Geng, Hua, 2023. "A methodology to identify and assess high-risk causes for electrical personal accidents based on directed weighted CN," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    16. Usman Ahmad & Yusnidah Ibrahim & Mohd Sobri Minai, 2017. "Public Private Partnership in Malaysia: The Differences in Perceptions on the Criticality of Risk Factors and Allocation of Risks between the Private and Public Sectors," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 7(2), pages 138-150.
    17. Hai, Nan & Gong, Daqing & Liu, Shifeng & Dai, Zixuan, 2022. "Dynamic coupling risk assessment model of utility tunnels based on multimethod fusion," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    18. Wang, Ying & Zhang, Limao, 2021. "Simulation-based optimization for modeling and mitigating tunnel-induced damages," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    19. Zhao, Zhen-Yu & Zuo, Jian & Zillante, George, 2013. "Factors influencing the success of BOT power plant projects in China: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 446-453.
    20. Babatunde, Solomon Olusola & Perera, Srinath, 2017. "Analysis of traffic revenue risk factors in BOT road projects in developing countries," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 41-49.

    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:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:22:p:12645-:d:680077. 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.