IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i6p1854-d150365.html

Sustainable Construction Risk Perceptions in the Kuwaiti Construction Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Dalya Ismael

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA)

  • Tripp Shealy

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA)

Abstract

Sustainable construction is fundamentally different than traditional construction because it requires whole systems thinking, early collaboration across stakeholders, and core principles like reducing resource consumption, eliminating toxins, and applying life cycle costing. Construction professionals unfamiliar with this mindset and approach may perceive sustainable construction as risky. One of the global regions in need of more sustainable construction is the Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) region. The MENA region is one of the fastest developing in the world. However, it is the slowest one in implementing sustainable construction practices. Kuwait, in particular, contributes 53% more carbon emissions per capita than the United States. To understand how the Kuwaiti construction industry perceives risks associated with more sustainable construction, a survey was developed with 52 risk elements in which 131 industry professionals responded. The results indicate that industry professionals perceive a lack of public awareness as the risk element with the highest probability of occurrence. The risk element with the highest possible negative impact on future projects is designers’ and contractors’ inexperience with sustainable construction. Other risks were found to include a high initial cost for materials and overall project costs. Educational interventions, changes in risk allocation, and behavioral science to reframe upfront costs as long-term savings are offered as possible solutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Dalya Ismael & Tripp Shealy, 2018. "Sustainable Construction Risk Perceptions in the Kuwaiti Construction Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:1854-:d:150365
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1854/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1854/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nora Harris & Tripp Shealy & Leidy Klotz, 2016. "How Exposure to ”Role Model” Projects Can Lead to Decisions for More Sustainable Infrastructure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-9, January.
    2. Fischhoff, Baruch & Kadvany, John, 2011. "Risk: A Very Short Introduction," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199576203.
    3. Piet Eichholtz & Nils Kok & John M. Quigley, 2010. "Doing Well by Doing Good? Green Office Buildings," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(5), pages 2492-2509, December.
    4. Menoka Bal & David Bryde & Damian Fearon & Edward Ochieng, 2013. "Stakeholder Engagement: Achieving Sustainability in the Construction Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-16, February.
    5. Klotz, Leidy & Mack, Daniel & Klapthor, Brent & Tunstall, Casey & Harrison, Jennilee, 2010. "Unintended anchors: Building rating systems and energy performance goals for U.S. buildings," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3557-3566, July.
    6. David James Bryde & Jurgen Marc Volm, 2009. "Perceptions of owners in German construction projects: congruence with project risk theory," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(11), pages 1059-1071.
    7. Swan, Lukas G. & Ugursal, V. Ismet, 2009. "Modeling of end-use energy consumption in the residential sector: A review of modeling techniques," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(8), pages 1819-1835, October.
    8. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    9. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    10. Tang, Ou & Nurmaya Musa, S., 2011. "Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply chain risk management," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(1), pages 25-34, September.
    11. Queena K. Qian & Edwin H. W. Chan & Abd Ghani Khalid, 2015. "Challenges in Delivering Green Building Projects: Unearthing the Transaction Costs (TCs)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-22, March.
    12. Richard Hill & Paul Bowen, 1997. "Sustainable construction: principles and a framework for attainment," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 223-239.
    13. Nora Harris & Tripp Shealy & Leidy Klotz, 2016. "Choice Architecture as a Way to Encourage a Whole Systems Design Perspective for More Sustainable Infrastructure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, December.
    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. Mateusz Trzeciak, 2021. "Sustainable Risk Management in IT Enterprises," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Meryem Bortali & Mohamed Rabouli & Madiha Yessari & Abdelowahed Hajjaji, 2023. "Characterizing Harbor Dredged Sediment for Sustainable Reuse as Construction Material," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-26, January.
    3. Bader Alshuraiaan, 2021. "Renewable Energy Technologies for Energy Efficient Buildings: The Case of Kuwait," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-16, July.
    4. Hung Duy Nguyen & Laura Macchion, 2023. "Risk management in green building: a review of the current state of research and future directions," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 2136-2172, March.
    5. 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.
    6. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Jonas Šaparauskas & Jurgita Antucheviciene, 2018. "Sustainability in Construction Engineering," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-7, June.
    7. Sadaf Dalirazar & Zahra Sabzi, 2022. "Barriers to sustainable development: Critical social factors influencing the sustainable building development based on Swedish experts' perspectives," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 1963-1974, December.

    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. Delgado, Laura & Shealy, Tripp, 2018. "Opportunities for greater energy efficiency in government facilities by aligning decision structures with advances in behavioral science," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 3952-3961.
    2. Nora Harris & Tripp Shealy & Leidy Klotz, 2016. "Choice Architecture as a Way to Encourage a Whole Systems Design Perspective for More Sustainable Infrastructure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, December.
    3. Philippe Fevrier & Sebastien Gay, 2005. "Informed Consent Versus Presumed Consent The Role of the Family in Organ Donations," HEW 0509007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Wiebke Roß & Jens Weghake, 2018. "Wa(h)re Liebe: Was Online-Dating-Plattformen über zweiseitige Märkte lehren," TUC Working Papers in Economics 0017, Abteilung für Volkswirtschaftslehre, Technische Universität Clausthal (Department of Economics, Technical University Clausthal).
    5. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    6. Karle, Heiko & Schumacher, Heiner & Vølund, Rune, 2023. "Consumer loss aversion and scale-dependent psychological switching costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 214-237.
    7. Arnab K. Basu & Nancy H. Chau & Gary Lin, 2026. "On Migration Gravity with Status Quo Bias and Job Search Frictions," RFBerlin Discussion Paper Series 26104, ROCKWOOL Foundation Berlin (RFBerlin).
    8. Walter Bossert & Yves Sprumont, 2009. "Non‐Deteriorating Choice," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(302), pages 337-363, April.
    9. Edward H. Chang & Erika L. Kirgios, 2024. "Demographic “Stickiness”: The Demographic Identity of Departing Group Members Influences Who Is Chosen to Replace Them," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(7), pages 4236-4259, July.
    10. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.
    11. repec:osf:socarx:a9436_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Daniele Pennesi, 2013. "Endogenous Status Quo," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 314, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    13. Hasan-Basri, Bakti & Yahya, Nurul & Musa, Rusmani, 2013. "Status Quo Effect and Preferences Uncertainty: A Heteroscedastic Extreme Value (HEV) Model," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 47(1), pages 163-172.
    14. Ulrich Schmidt & Stefan Traub, 2009. "An Experimental Investigation of the Disparity Between WTA and WTP for Lotteries," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 229-262, March.
    15. Inman, J.J. & Zeelenberg, M., 2002. "Regret in repeat purchase versus switching decisions : The attenuating role of decision justifiability," Other publications TiSEM 44060120-bd30-40e0-a97f-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    16. Meloria Meschi & Carla Pace, 2012. "Accounting for Behavioral Biases for Non-biased Demand Estimations," Chapters, in: Michael A. Crew & Paul R. Kleindorfer (ed.), Multi-Modal Competition and the Future of Mail, chapter 24, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Joseph Teal & Petko Kusev & Renata Heilman & Rose Martin & Alessia Passanisi & Ugo Pace, 2021. "Problem Gambling ‘Fuelled on the Fly’," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-14, August.
    18. Matthey, Astrid, 2005. "Getting used to risks: Reference dependence and risk inclusion," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2005-036, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    19. Sunaina kanojia & Deepali Malhotra, 2025. "Hegemony of behavioral biases dislodging financial well-being: evidence from India, USA and UK," Future Business Journal, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 1-22, December.
    20. Houljakbe Houlteurbe Dagou & Asli Pelin Gurgun & Kerim Koc & Cenk Budayan, 2025. "The Future of Construction: Integrating Innovative Technologies for Smarter Project Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-29, May.
    21. Madjid Eshaghi Gordji & Mohammadali Berahman & Hasti Eshaghi, 2026. "Why Efficient Reforms Fail: Endogenous Game Transformation under Status Quo Bias and Social Preferences," Papers 2605.21656, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:10:y:2018:i:6:p:1854-:d:150365. 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 The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (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.