10.57647/j.fomj.2025.0604.19

A hybrid fuzzy cognitive–system dynamics framework for modeling environmental risk evolution in construction megaprojects

PDF
  • Seyed Amin Seyedi,
  • Alireza Mirjalili*1,
  • Mahoudreza Maheri2,
  • Abolfazl Sadeghian3,
  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Yazd Branch, Islamic Azad University, Yazd, Iran
  2. Department of Civil Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
  3. Department of Industrial Management, Ya. C., Islamic Azad University, Yazd, Iran

Received: 2025-11-07

Revised: 2025-12-07

Accepted: 2025-12-23

Published in Issue 2025-12-30

Copyright (c) 2025 Seyed Amin Seyedi, Alireza Mirjalili, Mahoudreza Maheri, Abolfazl Sadeghian (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Seyedi, S. A., Mirjalili, A., Maheri, M., & Sadeghian, A. (2025). A hybrid fuzzy cognitive–system dynamics framework for modeling environmental risk evolution in construction megaprojects. Fuzzy Optimization and Modeling Journal (FOMJ), 6(4). https://doi.org/10.57647/j.fomj.2025.0604.19
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 36

Abstract

Emphasizing the critical role of sustainability, this research comprehensively assesses environmental risks in industrial-construction megaprojects and shows that identifying and managing these risks can help reduce negative environmental consequences and improve sustainable decision-making. The present study aims to analyze the environmental risk management system in a megaproject as a case. Therefore, the innovation of this research lies in the use of a system dynamics approach and fuzzy cognitive mapping to identify and assess environmental risks in large-scale industrial and civil engineering projects. Based on this analysis, each aspect of a project's environmental risk management is ranked using the Analytic Network Process (ANP), and Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) and causal relationships are examined. Also, using the Fuzzy Cognitive Map (FCM) approach, the in degree, out degree, and centrality of each risk have been identified. Then, the behavioral model is determined based on the system dynamics. The risk of completing the project timely and the issues related to the increase in time due to environmental laws were ranked first, an over predicted increase in the project time due to environmental laws was ranked second, and the factor of environmental issues and problems was ranked third. Environmental issues and problems have the highest impact and the risk of completing the project timely and the issues related to the increase in time due to environmental laws were the most affected factor. Experts believe that the involvement of several institutions and decision-making from the perspective of environmental climate issues is one of the most significant environmental risks affecting the completion of the project.  This issue is because the risk of completing the project timely from an environmental perspective and environmental issues and problems is reduced by controlling and reducing this risk. These two risks are increasing with an increase in the risk of conflict among several decision-making institutions from the perspective of environmental climate issues. The risk of the involvement of several decision-making institutions from a climate and environmental perspective is directly associated with two risks of environmental issues and problems and the risk of completing the project timely. Thus, the institutions involved in the climate and environmental issues of the project can reduce the risk of timely completion of the project and environmental issues and problems with mechanisms and memorandums that reduce the risk of conflict among them.

Keywords

  • Megaproject,
  • Environment,
  • Risk,
  • System dynamics
PDF

References

  1. M. Abolghasemian, A. Pourghader Chobar, M. AliBakhshi, A. Fakhr, and S. Moradi Pirbalouti. Delay scheduling based on discrete-event simulation for construction projects. Iranian Journal of Operations Research, 12(1):49–63, 2021.
  2. M. A. Kassem, M. A. Khoiry, and N. Hamzah. Assessment of the effect of external risk factors on the success of an oil and gas construction project. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 27(9):2767–2793, 2020.
  3. M. Ahmadi, K. Behzadian, A. Ardeshir, and Z. Kapelan. Comprehensive risk management using fuzzy FMEA and MCDA techniques in highway construction projects. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 23(2):300–310, 2017.
  4. H. Aladağ and Z. Işık. Design and construction risks in BOT type mega transportation projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(10):2223–2242, 2019.
  5. A. Albogamy and N. Dawood. Development of a client-based risk management methodology for the early design stage of construction processes: applied to the KSA. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 22(5):493–515, 2015.
  6. A. Boehm and R. Turner. Management challenges to implementing agile processes in traditional development organizations. IEEE Software, 22(5):30–39, 2005.
  7. Caldas and A. Gupta. Critical factors impacting the performance of mega-projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 24(6):920–934, 2017.
  8. O. D. Cardona. The need for rethinking the concepts of vulnerability and risk from a holistic perspective: a necessary review and criticism for effective risk management. In Mapping Vulnerability, pp. 37–51. Routledge, 2013.
  9. J. F. Carriger, M. Thompson, and M. G. Barron. Causal Bayesian networks in assessments of wildfire risks: Opportunities for ecological risk assessment and management. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 17(6):1168–1178, 2021.
  10. M. Čepin and B. Mavko. A dynamic fault tree. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 75(1):83–91, 2002.
  11. H. F. Cervone. Project risk management. OCLC Systems & Services: International Digital Library Perspectives, 22(4):256–262, 2006.
  12. A. P. Chan, R. Osei-Kyei, Y. Hu, and L. E. Yun. A fuzzy model for assessing the risk exposure of procuring infrastructure mega-projects through public-private partnership: The case of Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macao Bridge. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 5(1):64–77, 2018.
  13. X. Ding and Q. Li. Optimal risk allocation in alliance infrastructure projects: A social preference perspective. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 9(2):326–336, 2022.
  14. P. M. Hasugian, B. Sinaga, J. Manurung, and S. A. Al Hashim. Best cluster optimization with combination of K-means algorithm and elbow method towards rice production status determination. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 5(1):102–110, 2021.
  15. M. Hopkinson. The Project Risk Maturity Model: Measuring and Improving Risk Management Capability. Routledge, 2017.
  16. S. H. Jiang, J. Huang, C. Yao, and J. Yang. Quantitative risk assessment of slope failure in 2-D spatially variable soils by limit equilibrium method. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 47:710–725, 2017.
  17. L. Kang, H. Li, C. Li, N. Xiao, H. Sun, and N. Buhigiro. Risk warning technologies and emergency response mechanisms in Sichuan–Tibet Railway construction. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 8(4):582–594, 2021.
  18. E. Kutsch and M. Hall. Deliberate ignorance in project risk management. International Journal of Project Management, 28(3):245–255, 2010.
  19. J. Lankester, E. Bohensky, and M. Newlands. Media representations of risk: The reporting of dredge spoil disposal in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park at Abbot Point. Marine Policy, 60:149–161, 2015.
  20. Lu, Y. Pan, and C. Cai. Reliability guarantee framework for the Sichuan–Tibet railway. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 8(4):480–491, 2021.
  21. X. Liu, Y. Yin, X. Xu, Q. Tang, and H. Cui. Integrated environmental risks. In Atlas of Environmental Risks Facing China under Climate Change, pp. 205–223. Springer Singapore, 2017.
  22. L. Olfat, F. Khosravani, and R. Jalali. Identification and ranking of project risk based on PMBOK standard by fuzzy approach. Industrial Management Studies, 8(19):147–163, 2010.
  23. T. A. Carbone and D. D. Tippett. Project risk management using the project risk FMEA. Engineering Management Journal, 16(4):28–35, 2004.
  24. H. D. Nguyen and L. Macchion. A comprehensive risk assessment model based on a fuzzy synthetic evaluation approach for green building projects: the case of Vietnam. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 30(7):2837–2861, 2023.
  25. K. Koc, H. Kunkcu, and A. P. Gurgun. A life cycle risk management framework for green building project stakeholders. Journal of Management in Engineering, 39(4):04023022, 2023.
  26. T. B. A. Duong, T. Pham, Q. H. Truong, K. Nguyen, C. H. Pham, T. H. Hoang, and T. H. Pham. Risk in sustainable construction supply chains: construct development and measurement validation. Construction Management and Economics, 41(8):634–650, 2023.
  27. H. D. Nguyen and L. Macchion. Exploring critical risk factors for green building projects in developing countries: The case of Vietnam. Journal of Cleaner Production, 381:135138, 2022.
  28. S. A. Seyedi, A. Mirjalili, M. Maheri, and A. Sadeghian. A structural framework for factors influencing industrial megaproject risks using the DEMATEL–ANP method. In Operations Research Forum, 6(3):91. Springer International Publishing, 2025.
  29. M. Khalilzadeh, S. A. Banihashemi, A. Heidari, S. M. H. Orazani, and P. Taebi. Risk management in the production phase of oil and gas projects: evaluating risk responses and their impact on safety and damage reduction. Discover Civil Engineering, 2(1):91, 2025.
  30. M. B. Murtaza. Fuzzy-AHP application to country risk assessment. American Business Review, 21(2):109, 2003.
  31. G. Radivojević and V. Gajović. Supply chain risk modeling by AHP and Fuzzy AHP methods. Journal of Risk Research, 17(3):337–352, 2014.
  32. Y. Rahimi, R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, S. H. Iranmanesh, and M. Vaez-Alaei. Hybrid approach to construction project risk management with simultaneous FMEA/ISO 31000/evolutionary algorithms: Empirical optimization study. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 144(6):04018043, 2018.
  33. Q. Wang and X. Yang. Investigating the sustainability of renewable energy–An empirical analysis of European Union countries using a hybrid projection pursuit fuzzy clustering model and accelerated genetic algorithm based on real coding. Journal of Cleaner Production, 268:121940, 2020.
  34. X. Xu and P. X. Zou. System dynamics analytical modeling approach for construction project management research: A critical review and future directions. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 8(1):17–31, 2021.
  35. L. Zhang, Y. He, and J. Chen. Analysis of site selection and design example of spoil ground. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 631(1):012005. IOP Publishing, 2021
  36. J. Falana, R. Osei-Kyei, & V. W. Tam. Towards achieving a net zero carbon building: A review of key stakeholders and their roles in net zero carbon building whole life cycle. Journal of Building Engineering, 82, 108223. 2024.
  37. L. Wang, W. M. C. Daniel, D. Darko, and I. Benjamin. A-state-of-the-art review of risk management process of green building projects. Journal of Building Engineering 86, 108738. 2024
  38. F. Wang, F. Maxwell, A. Shahnawaz, U. Waleed, and M. Imran. Risk management in sustainable building projects: A systematic literature review and scientometric analysis. Cleaner Production Letters, 100111. 2025.