Fuzzy Logic–Based Method for Risk Assessment

of Belt and Road Infrastructure Projects

Jelena M. Andrić 1; Jiayuan Wang 2; Patrick X. W. Zou 3; Jingrong Zhang 4; and Ruoyu Zhong 5

Abstract: The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is an ambitious economic project proposed by the Chinese government that focuses on
establishing connectivity, strengthening cooperation, and creating closer economic ties among countries. The idea of BRI is based on the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUNY at Stony Brook on 09/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

revival of the ancient Silk Road, a trade route that was once connecting China with Central Asia, India, Middle East, Western Asia, and
Europe. More than 1,700 infrastructure projects are planned to be implemented under BRI. Such a huge infrastructure investment brings a lot
of opportunities as well as risks for nations along the Silk Road, their governments, contractors, and investors. Compared to traditional
international construction projects, BRI projects are exposed to additional risks since they are geographically distributed and complex
in nature and include more stakeholders. Hence, risk assessment of BRI projects is a complex task that requires an efficient tool capable
of providing detailed information about critical risks. To bridge this gap, a novel method is developed and applied to the risk assessment of
complex, geographically distributed, and large-scale infrastructure projects, such as BRI projects. The proposed risk assessment method
integrates fuzzy matrices, fuzzy logic, and probabilistic theory into a single approach that is applied to assess risks in BRI projects for
different regions, as well as regional risk and total risk. In addition, sensitivity analysis is used to optimize the proposed fuzzy logic–based
risk assessment method. The key findings are as follows: (1) the main risks in BRI projects are delay in supplying materials, increases in
material prices, poor quality of materials, delays in equipment delivery, increases in the costs of equipment use, and economic risk; (2) the
highest risk-ranked regions in BRI projects are Central Asia and Eastern Europe, while the lowest risk-ranked region is East Asia; and (3) a
weighted-average method is the optimal defuzzification method for the proposed fuzzy logic–based method. The theoretical contribution of
this research is a novel risk assessment method that integrates expert judgment, fuzzy sets, fuzzy logic, fuzzy matrices, and probabilistic
theory into a single approach supported by sensitivity analysis. In practical terms, this study provides significant information about risks in
various regions, regional risk, and overall risk of BRI projects to contractors, investors, and other stakeholders. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
CO.1943-7862.0001721. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Infrastructure projects; Risk assessment; Fuzzy logic; Belt and Road Initiative; Silk Road Economic Belt; 21st-Century
Maritime Silk Road.

Introduction
According to a well-known Chinese proverb, “If you want to get
rich, first, you need to build roads,” and it is in this connection that
the Chinese government has established and spearheaded the con-
cept of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). BRI is a development
strategy aimed at establishing cooperation and connectivity among
countries in order to strengthen economic ties, increase trade, and
develop vast regions in Asia, Europe, and Africa (Huang 2016). The
idea of BRI is based on the revival of the ancient Silk Road, a trade
1
Postdoctoral Research Fellow, College of Civil Engineering, Shenzhen
Univ., Shenzhen 518060, China. Email: jln.andric@gmail.com
2
Professor and Dean, College of Civil Engineering, Shenzhen Univ.,
Shenzhen 518060, China (corresponding author). Email: wangjy@szu
.edu.cn
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Construction Engineering and Center for
Sustainable Infrastructure, Swinburne Univ. of Technology, P.O. Box 218,
Hawthorn, Melbourne, VIC 3122, Australia. Email: pwzou@swin.edu.au
4
Master Student, College of Civil Engineering, Shenzhen Univ.,
Shenzhen 518060, China. Email: zhangjingrong2495@163.com
5
Professor, China Center for Special Economic Zone Research,
Shenzhen Univ., Shenzhen 518060, China. Email: szuzhong@szu.edu.cn
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 20, 2018; approved on
April 9, 2019; published online on September 30, 2019. Discussion period
open until February 29, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction En-
gineering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364.
route that once connected China with Central Asian countries, India,
the Middle East, Western Asia, and Europe. On land, the focus is on
building economic corridors based on existing international trans-
port routes and major industrial parks, and it is called the Silk Road
Economic Belt. At sea, the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road is
based on opening fast, secure, and efficient shipping routes connect-
ing major seaports in Southeast and South Asia, the Middle East,
Africa, and the Mediterranean. In total, BRI includes more than
1,700 infrastructure projects worth more than US$ 8 trillion that
are slated to be launch in the period between 2013 and 2030. These
projects include railways, roadways, bridges, tunnels, seaports, air-
ports, the energy sector, and other hard infrastructures. Such a huge
number of projects brings many opportunities for nations along the
Silk Road. Infrastructure development is the key element of BRI
since it contributes to socioeconomic growth and brings prosperity
to the less-developed regions of China, Xinjiang, Shaanxi, Sichuan,
Yunnan, Guangxi, and Chongqing, as well as to other countries in
Asia, Africa, and Europe. Also, BRI will improve connectivity be-
tween different parts of the world. For example, landlocked countries
in Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
and Turkmenistan will gain access to major seaports in South and
Southeast Asia. Similarly, the Djibouti–Ethiopia railway in Africa
will connect landlocked Ethiopia with Djibouti’s port on the Red Sea
and provide access to international shipping routes.
BRI projects are (1) strategic and geopolitical since they have a
huge impact on the economic and social development of regions;
(2) geographically distributed since they are located on three

© ASCE 04019082-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(12): 04019082

 continents (Asia, Europe, and Africa); (3) unique owing to the fact
that they connect people from diverse societies with different so-
cial, cultural, and religious backgrounds; (4) complex owing to
their scope, long duration, large-scale operations, and highly tech-
nical and modern technology procedures; (5) development-oriented
since the aim is to enhance cooperation and trade among countries
that will result in the economic growth of all countries; (6) repre-
sented by many different stakeholders including two governments
(the Chinese government and BRI country governments), Chinese
contractors, Chinese banks, international organizations, and others;
and (7) funded by special funds and banks (Asian Infrastructure In-
vestment Bank, Silk Road Fund, Export-Import Bank of China, and
China Development Bank). Furthermore, BRI construction projects
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUNY at Stony Brook on 09/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
are specific, and different agreements and contracts are needed for
their execution. The conceptual model of BRI projects is based on
an agreement on economic and technical cooperation in the field of
transport infrastructure, commercial contracts for BRI projects, and
loan agreements for financing BRI projects (Andrić et al. 2018).
First, diplomatic and bilateral relations between China and other
countries are established, and an agreement on mutual economic
and technical cooperation in the field of transport infrastructure
is signed. Further, a commercial contract on the implementation of
a BRI project is concluded between the government of the BRI
country and a Chinese contractor according to provisions from the
agreement on mutual cooperation. Based on this contract and other
supporting documents, the two parties apply for a bank loan to fi-
nance the BRI project. Depending on the country’s economic status,
the Chinese bank can approve or reject the loan. The loan agree-
ment is signed between the government of the BRI country and a
Chinese bank.
Compared to international or domestic construction projects,
BRI projects are affected by additional risks owing to their nature,
geographical locations, complexity, purpose, and diverse stake-
holders. These additional risks are related to policy and strategic
partnerships between China and BRI countries and include geopo-
litical risk, credit risk, and cooperation risk between China and BRI
member. Second, two types of uncertainty appear in the risk assess-
ment process of BRI projects: informal and lexical uncertainty.
Informal uncertainty stems from information deficits since the
number of observations or data samples will be of limited size.
Lexical uncertainty arises from the use of linguistic variables that
are convenient for experts to express their judgment of risks. As a
result of informal and lexical uncertainties, fuzziness is involved in
the risk assessment process. Since BRI projects are geographically
distributed and include various regions with different political, eco-
nomic, cultural, and social backgrounds and environmental condi-
tions, and fuzziness as an uncertainty characteristic is involved in
the risk assessment process, the traditional probabilistic risk assess-
ment methods used in the previous studies cannot be applied in this
case. A probabilistic approach is applied in problems that involve
randomness, a characteristic of stochastic uncertainty. Thus, there is
a need for the systematic identification of potential risks in BRI
projects and a tool that enables risk assessment on different levels,
including a regional level and overall, and that can be used to deal
with fuzziness. Fuzzy set theory and fuzzy logic constitute an ef-
ficient tool for dealing with fuzziness. In addition, there are limited
studies related to BRI projects in the current literature.
To address the aforementioned limitations and bridge existing
knowledge gaps in this area, the main aims of this study are as
follows:
• systematically investigate the potential risks in BRI projects;
• design and develop a novel fuzzy logic-based method to assess
the risk associated with complex and geographically distributed
© ASCE 04019082-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(12): 04019082
projects with the aid of sensitivity analysis to select the optimal
fuzzy system configuration; and
• assess construction risks in various regions hosting BRI pro-
jects, regional risks and total risk using the proposed method.
The risk assessment method for BRI projects proposed in this
paper integrates expert judgment, fuzzy knowledge representation,
fuzzy set theory, fuzzy logic, fuzzy matrices, and probabilistic
theory into a single approach. The benefits of fuzzy logic tools
for risk assessment compared to other methods include the follow-
ing: (1) it offers the ability to model vague data that are used in
decision-making processes and to operate with linguistic variables
(Ross 2009); (2) linguistic variables are more suitable for experts to
express their logical judgments due to risk complexity (Wang et al.
2004); (3) subjective judgment involving individual knowledge is a
more efficient tool for risk analysis than a probabilistic approach
(Kuo and Lu 2013); (4) it offers the capability to deal with a small
number of observations; (5) fuzzy set theory represents an efficient
way to deal with fuzziness resulting from informal and lexical un-
certainty (Möller and Beer 2013). A fuzzy logic–based method is
employed for risk assessment of BRI projects because of the ben-
efits of fuzzy logic compared to other methods. Fuzzy logic pos-
sesses different aggregation functions that can combine risks from
various regions where BRI projects take place into an overall risk
profile and has the ability to deal with the informal uncertainty that
occurs when only samples of limited size are available. Further-
more, fuzzy logic can treat lexical uncertainties that arise from ex-
perts’ subjective judgment of risks. Moreover, sensitivity analysis
is applied to select the optimal defuzzification method for a fuzzy
system. The benefits of the novel method are that it highlights the
critical risks in construction projects for the different regions host-
ing BRI projects, which constitutes valuable information from a
contractor’s perspective, and it incorporates risk levels of different
regions, which provides valuable information to decision makers
from an investor’s point of view.
Literature Review
Risk Identification
Risks affect construction projects and can cause serious consequen-
ces, such as time delays (Sambasivan and Soon 2007), cost over-
runs (Dikmen et al. 2007), failure to meet quality standards (Wang
and Chou 2003), and accidents at construction sites (Wang et al.
2016). Similarly, the risks affecting BRI infrastructure projects can
cause cost overruns, time overruns, poor quality performance, and
safety issues. Risk identification is the initial step in risk assessment
that distinguishes hazards that pose potential threats to project
aims in terms of cost, time, quality, and safety (Rutkauskas 2008).
The current literature contains different risk identifications and
classifications. For example, Shen et al. (2001) studied risks in the
construction industry in China and divided them into six categories
according to their nature: financial, legal, policy and political,
technical, market, and management risks. Sambasivan and Soon
(2007) focused on risks that cause delays in construction projects
in Malaysia. Overall, 28 causes of delay were identified, and they
were divided into 8 groups: client, contractor, consultant, material,
labor and equipment, contract, contractual relationships, and exter-
nal causes. In the case of highway projects in China, Zayed et al.
(2008) classified risks based on company management level (finan-
cial, political, cultural, and market risks) and project management
level (technology, contracts and legal issues, resources, design, qual-
ity, construction, and others) according to the judgment of Chinese
experts who are specialists in highway construction. A total of 27
risks in underground rail projects in Singapore were identified and
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 used for risk assessment in a study by Zhao et al. (2013). Further,
Chang et al. (2017) studied political risks in infrastructure projects
related to the Silk Road Economic Belt in Central Asian countries.
In a study by Razzaq et al. (2018), external risks in international
joint ventures in the construction industry in Pakistan are grouped
into five categories: political, economic, legal, social, and natural/
environmental risks.
This literature review shows that the focus has been to identify
critical risks in the construction industry in certain countries
(e.g., China, Malaysia, Singapore, and Pakistan) in which the stud-
ied projects were international and domestic projects or to assess
the particular risk such as political risk in Central Asia. However,
geographically distributed projects spanning various countries
implemented under the same policy have not been studied.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUNY at Stony Brook on 09/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Risk Assessment
In this section, methods for risk assessment and ranking in the con-
struction industry used in 71 journal articles in the period between
2007 and 2017 are summarized. These articles were published
in five journals, which were chosen based on two criteria: high
impact factor (International Journal of Project Management and
Expert Systems with Applications) and the maximum number of
publications in the studied field (ASCE Journal of Management
in Engineering, ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, and Construction Management and Economics). The
applied methods for risk assessment and ranking shown in Fig. 1
are qualitative methods (QM), significant risk index (SRI), prob-
abilistic and statistical approach (PSA), Bayesian network (BN),
analytical hierarchical process (AHP), analytic network process
(ANP), fuzzy logic (FL), and fuzzy–AHP (FAHP).
According to Fig. 1, the most common methods for risk assess-
ment in the construction industry were PSA methods, which in-
cluded linear regression analysis, least-square regression analysis,
descriptive statistics, and ANOVA. However, PSA methods possess
certain limitations for risk assessment, as pointed out by Pinto et al.
(2011). These limitations include, but are not limited to, the follow-
ing. First, probability theory is based on randomness, but construc-
tion projects deal with deliberately planned actions that are not
random. Also, the uniqueness of construction projects reduces the
relevance and reliability of statistical aggregates derived from
probability-based analysis. Moreover, decision makers are limited
in their ability to incorporate the full range of information essential
for holistic decisions.
The second most common method for risk ranking is SRI since
it enables simple and efficient assessment of risks. Mathematically,
SRI is estimated as the average value of the product of the prob-
ability of risk and the impact of risk, which are evaluated by re-
spondents. The limitation of the SRI method for risk assessment is
that there are no techniques for considering and treating the ambi-
guity and vagueness that arise from experts’ subjective judgments
of the probability and impact of risks.
The concept of fuzzy set theory and fuzzy logic was introduced
by Zadeh (1965). FL has proven to be a reliable tool for the devel-
opment of various risk assessment models in engineering, such as a
fuzzy multiattribute decision-making model for the risk assessment
of build-operate-transfer projects, determining contingency in con-
struction projects, and others. On the other hand, the limitations
of FL is its shallow concept since it follows an inductive approach
to reasoning, reliance on human knowledge, linguistic expression,
and experience as a source of uncertainty (Duckstein 1995).
AHP is a convenient method for multicriteria decision-making
analysis; it is widely used because of its flexibility and simple com-
putational process (Wang et al. 2009). First, a decision problem is
© ASCE 04019082-3
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(12): 04019082
decomposed into a hierarchical breakdown structure with goals,
factors, and subfactors. The weights of factors and subfactors are
determined by a system of pairwise comparison. Some limitations
of AHP (Andrić and Lu 2016; Shapiro and Koissi 2017) that it
does not incorporate the vagueness inherent in human subjective
judgment, the fact that pairwise comparison data cannot provide
consistent matrices, its aggregation method allows rank reversal,
and it can only model a problem with a hierarchical structure,
among others.
Like AHP, ANP is a tool used for decision-making analysis; it is
presented as having a network structure composed of different clus-
ters with interactions and dependencies among them. Since an AHP
method can model a problem with a hierarchical structure (linear
structure), ANP represents an enhancement of AHP that can be
used to overcome this issue. In ANP, a network (nonlinear) struc-
ture is used for decision-making analysis instead of a hierarchical
(linear) structure. According to Fig. 1, ANP is among the least used
methods in the construction industry for risk assessment owing to
its computational complexity, and it is rarely used in other indus-
tries as well (Sadeghi and Larimian 2018).
The FAHP method represents an enhancement of AHP since the
vagueness that originates from a respondent’s subjective judgment
is not considered in traditional AHP. While decision makers ex-
press their judgment in the form of an exact numeric value on a
nine-point scale in the AHP method, FAHP allows them to express
their judgments in a more sophisticated manner using linguistic
variables instead of a nine-point numerical scale. In this way, the
imprecision and vagueness that are a part of decision-making proc-
esses are considered in risk assessments.
A BN is based on conditional probability theory and is a graphi-
cal representation of independent variables in a form of a direct
acyclic graph (Heckerman 1997), in which nodes represent the
probabilistic variables and arrows represent the casual relationships
between them. The liabilities of a BN are computational complex-
ity (to calculate the probability of any branch of the network, all
branches must be calculated) and the quality of prior beliefs in
Bayesian inference processing since a BN is useful because prior
knowledge is reliable (Niedermayer 2008).
The foregoing literature review reveals that PSA, SRI, AHP,
ANP, and BN methods are incapable of addressing informal and
lexical uncertainties that arise from the subjective judgment of ex-
perts and small data samples. If the following uncertainties are not
addressed, the final results may be unreliable (Gracia and Quezada
2016). Therefore, a fuzzy-based method for BRI project risk assess-
ment is selected and applied since it can treat these uncertainties.
Even though fuzzy-based methods have been used for risk assess-
ment in the construction industry for particular projects or interna-
tional and domestic projects in particular countries, they have not
25
20
15
10
5
0
PSA SRI FL FAHP AHP QM ANP BN
Fig. 1. Methods for risk assessment and ranking in construction
industry.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 been applied in the risk assessment of complex, geographically dis-
tributed, and large-scale projects in different regions.
Methodology
To illustrate the risk assessment process on BRI projects, a flow-
chart is developed (Fig. 2). It is arranged into three logical steps:
(1) identification of risks in BRI projects; (2) data collection and
risk analysis of probability of risks and their impacts; (3) risk as-
sessment using the proposed fuzzy logic–based method. First, risks
in BRI projects are investigated and systematically categorized into
three groups by source. The second step is to collect data about the
probability and impact of these risks using a questionnaire survey
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUNY at Stony Brook on 09/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and the construction market were obtained from journal articles
showing risks in international construction projects, while risks as-
sociated with BRI are derived from literature related to policy and
strategic partnerships between China and BRI countries.
BRI risks include geopolitical risk, credit risk, and cooperation
risk between China and BRI countries. In general, BRI is an enor-
mous geopolitical project aimed at developing infrastructure that
will enable trade, investment, and the exchange of ideas, informa-
tion, knowledge, and philosophies in the participating countries
(Campos 2015; Blanchard and Flint 2017). Also, the New Silk
Road and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road have a tendency to
change geopolitics in different regions of the world posing a threat
to the economies of certain countries. For instance, Chinese devel-
opment, economic growth, and influence in Eurasia could exclude

from the participants in the given BRI project. Further, the collected
data are used in risk analysis. The risk assessment process is carried
out using the proposed fuzzy logic–based method.
Risks in BRI Projects
A preliminary list of 33 potential risks in BRI projects were ob-
tained from different literature reviews, journal articles, technical
reports, and case studies, as well as those specifically oriented to
BRI. A detailed list of potential risks in BRI projects with their
sources is given in Table 1. Compared to traditional risk frame-
works, risks in BRI projects can be grouped into three categories:
risks related to the project, the construction market, and BRI. Like
risk in traditional international projects, risks related to a project
the US from Asian markets (Fallon 2015). Besides the US, BRI
poses a potential threat to the economies of Japan and India.
Second, political, religious, and ethnic conflicts are common in
some countries such as Afghanistan and Pakistan, which could
easily resulted in the disruption of the Silk Road’s function of es-
tablishing connectivity among countries.
The majority of BRI members are developing countries with
insufficient funds for large-scale infrastructure projects. Credit risk
arises from loans given by Chinese banks to BRI countries to com-
plete BRI projects. Loans for BRI projects can be approved or de-
nied depending on a BRI country’s ability to pay back the loans.
This includes loan effectiveness and procedures for loan approval.
Compared to traditional international projects, BRI projects
are the result of cooperation and bilateral partnership agreements

Risk Identification of BRI projects

Data collection and risk analyses

Risk assessment
Fuzzification

Form Project – Risk probability and Project-

Risk impact matrices for each region

Aggregation of risk probability and

aggregation of risk impact for each region

Risk assessment on
Aggregation of risks
the region level Form Region – Risk probability and
in the same region
Region-Risk impact matrix

Defuzzification Defuzzification of region risk

Aggregation

Defuzzification of overall risks

Fig. 2. Flowchart of proposed methodology.

© ASCE 04019082-4 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(12): 04019082

 Table 1. List of risks in BRI projects
Group Risk Source
BRI Geopolitical Campos (2015), Fallon (2015), Winter (2016), and Andrić et al. (2017)
Credit Andrić et al. (2017)
Cooperation between two countries Andrić et al. (2017)
Construction Economic Shen et al. (2001), Zayed et al. (2008), Makui et al. (2010), and Razzaq et al. (2018)
market Legal El-Sayegh and Mansour (2015), Liu et al. (2016), and Razzaq et al. (2018)
Political Shen et al. (2001), Liu et al. (2016), and Razzaq et al. (2018)
Social Park et al. (2014), Liu et al. (2016), and Razzaq et al. (2018)
Cultural difference Sim and Ali (2000), Park et al. (2014), and El-Sayegh and Mansour (2015)
Different religious background Liu et al. (2016)
Project Majeure force El-Sayegh and Mansour (2015), Khodeir and Mohamed (2017), El-Sayegh and
Mansour (2015), Liu et al. (2016), and Razzaq et al. (2018)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUNY at Stony Brook on 09/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Unforeseeable ground conditions
Noise pollution
Soil and water pollution
Weather conditions
Design errors
Inadequate design quality
Changes in design
Poor access to construction site
Poor organization of construction site
Lack of equipment
Breakdown of equipment
Delay of equipment delivery
Increase cost of equipment use
Poor quality of materials
Increase cost of materials
Delay in supplying materials
Lack of labor
Poor management skills of project managers
Lack of coordination between different sectors
Poor team communication
Inadequate quality control inspection
Accident occurrence
Safety measures on site
Hudyma and Fox (2016), Sambasivan and Soon (2007), Zayed et al. (2008),
El-Sayegh and Mansour (2015), and Liu et al. (2016)
Towers (2001), Kwon et al. (2016), and Kantová (2017)
Belayutham et al. (2016)
Sambasivan and Soon (2007), Makui et al. (2010), El-Sayegh and Mansour (2015),
and Khodeir and Mohamed (2017)
Shen et al. (2001) and Makui et al. (2010)
Makui et al. (2010), El-Sayegh and Mansour (2015), and Liu et al. (2016)
Andrić et al. (2017)
Kartam and Kartam (2001)
Assaf and Al-Hejji (2006) and Sambasivan and Soon (2007)
Assaf and Al-Hejji (2006), Sambasivan and Soon (2007), and Makui et al. (2010)
Shen et al. (2001), Assaf and Al-Hejji (2006), and Sambasivan and Soon (2007)
Assaf and Al-Hejji (2006) and Makui et al. (2010)
Shen et al. (2001)
Sambasivan and Soon (2007) and Zayed et al. (2008)
Shen et al. (2001) and Wang and Yuan (2011)
Assaf and Al-Hejji (2006) and Sambasivan and Soon (2007)
Makui et al. (2010), El-Sayegh and Mansour (2015), and Liu et al. (2016)
Liu et al. (2016)
Assaf and Al-Hejji (2006), El-Sayegh and Mansour (2015), and Liu et al. (2016)
Assaf and Al-Hejji (2006), Makui et al. (2010), and Liu et al. (2016)
Sambasivan and Soon (2007), Makui et al. (2010), and El-Sayegh and Mansour (2015)
El-Sayegh and Mansour (2015)
Zayed et al. (2008), El-Sayegh and Mansour (2015), and Liu et al. (2016)

between the Chinese government and the government of BRI coun-
tries. Hence, risks that can affect the execution of a BRI project in
the host country relate to cooperation and diplomatic relationships
between China and the BRI country. If certain issues emerge in
cooperation between China and a BRI country, this can lead to in-
terruption of a project. This risk is not considered for BRI projects
in China, Hong Kong, and Macau since such projects depend only
on the Chinese government.
The risks associated with the construction market are economic,
legal, political, social, cultural, and religious. Also, these risks are
common for international projects. BRI projects include stake-
holders with different social, cultural, and religious backgrounds,
so there is a high likelihood that the language barrier, cultural dif-
ferences, and religious differences could cause misunderstandings
during project implementation and lead to conflicts and disputes
(Norwood and Mansfield 1999).
Further, risks related to a project can be divided into four
groups: risk related to the project environment, design process, con-
struction process, and project staff and management. The group of
risks related to the project environment consists of force majeure,
unforeseen ground conditions, noise pollution, soil and water pol-
lution, and weather conditions. During the design phase, risks that
can occur are design errors, poor design quality, and changes in
design. During the construction process risks arise due to poor ac-
cess to construction sites, poor organization of construction sites,
lack of equipment, breakdown of equipment, delays in equipment
delivery, increased costs of equipment use, poor quality of materi-
als, delays in supplying materials, and increased costs of material
prices. The last group of risks is associated with the staff and man-
agement of a project and consists of risks related to a shortage of
labor, poor management skills of project managers, lack of co-
ordination between different sectors, poor team communication,
inadequate quality control inspections, accidents, and onsite safety
measures.
Data Collection and Risk Analyses
A questionnaire was designed based on the identified potential
risks from the literature review. The questionnaire is structured into
three sections related to the educational and working experience
background of the respondents, general information about the BRI
project they are working on, and risks (participants were asked to
evaluate the likelihood of risk occurrence and the impact of risks in
their current BRI project). Like earlier research related to the iden-
tification of critical risks in the construction industry, nonprobabil-
istic sampling techniques (purposive and snowball sampling) are
used. The questionnaires were distributed to construction practi-
tioners to ensure that they were working on BRI projects (purposive
sampling). They were contacted through the professional social net-
work LinkedIn and the Chinese social network WeChat. Also, the

© ASCE 04019082-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(12): 04019082

 Table 2. Respondent background Table 3. Location and characteristics of BRI projects
Category Number Description Number
Educational background Project location
College degree 14 East Asia 20
Bachelor’s degree 57 Central Asia 5
Master’s degree 34 South Asia 26
Doctoral degree 1 Southeast Asia 29
Work experience Middle East 14
Less than 5 years 48 East Africa 6
5–10 years 28 East Europe 6
10–15 years 12 Type of infrastructure projects
15–20 years 9 Highways 23
More than 20 years 9 Railways 30
Construction projects in past Bridges 18
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUNY at Stony Brook on 09/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Buildings 27 Tunnels 6
Highways 42 Seaports 15
Railways 37 Airports 8
Bridges 44 Other 6
Tunnels 24 Project cost (US$)
Seaports 22 Less than 250 million 38
Airports 13 250–500 million 18
500–750 million 10
750–1,000 million 3
More than 1 billion 37
respondents who participated in the questionnaire were asked Project duration
whether they could provide contact information of colleagues work- Less than 3 years 43
ing on other BRI projects (snowball sampling). Nonprobability sam- 3–5 years 40
5–7 years 20
pling technique was applied for this kind of study since it is cost and
More than 7 years 3
time effective and probability sampling was not feasible (the exact
number of employees working on BRI projects is unknown and
limitless). This sampling technique was used for data collection and
risk assessment in the construction industry in studies by Zou et al.
(2007), Zayed et al. (2008), Wang and Yuan (2011), Zhao et al. Cavite in the Philippines; Velana International Airport in Maldives;
(2013), and others. King Abdul Aziz Container Terminal Port in Saudi Arabia; Khalifa
A total of 163 responses were collected, in which 57 responses port in United Arab emirates; Port of Haifa in Israel; and others.
were identified as invalid because they were non-BRI projects
or the questionnaires were incorrectly filled in. Therefore, the re- Proposed Fuzzy Logic–Based Method for
sponse rate of the survey was 106=163 ¼ 65%, which is acceptable Risk Assessment of BRI Infrastructure Projects
according to Moser and Kalton (2017). In spite of the limited sam-
ple size of 106 responses, statistical analysis is valid since the cen- This method consists of seven logical steps. A step-by-step pro-
tral limit theorem is true for sample sizes larger than 30 (Ott and cedure for the risk assessment of BRI projects follows.
Longnecker 2015). Further, there is no criterion regarding sample
Step 1. Fuzzification
size when fuzzy-based methods are applied for data analysis (Zhao
The first step in fuzzy logic includes defining the input and output
et al. 2016). To treat informal uncertainty that arises owing to the
variables and selecting the linguistic scale, membership functions,
limited sample size in this study, a fuzzy logic–based method was
and fuzzification process. Input variables for each risk are the prob-
designed and used for data analysis.
ability of risk and the impact of risk. The linguistic values for input
The respondents’ educational background, work experience,
variables are Very Low (VL), Low (L), Moderate (M), High (H),
and previous construction projects on which they worked are pro-
and Very High (VH). Hence, a five-member linguistic scale with
vided in Table 2. Using the second part of the survey, BRI projects
triangular shaped membership function is selected (Fig. 3) since
are divided according to their location. The location and character- a triangular shape allows for more precise identification of linguis-
istics, such as project type, project cost, and project duration, are tic terms (Ivezić et al. 2008). The fuzzification process converts the
described in Table 3. In this study, data from some of the most fa- linguistic values of input variables into fuzzy set values using
mous BRI projects were collected: Laos–China railway; Kunming– the linguistic scale.
Singapore railway, which connects Yunnan province in China with
Singapore; Yuxi–Boten railway connecting Yunnan province with Step 2. Form Project-Risk Probability and
Laos; Chongqing–Lanzhou railway in China; Hong Kong–Zhuhai– Project-Risk Impact Matrices for Each Region
Macau bridge; Jakarta–Bandung high-speed railway in Indonesia; In order to estimate risks in different regions, project-risk proba-
Malaysia east coast railway; Astana light railway in Kazakhstan; bility and project-risk impact matrices are formed. For each region,
Taldykorgan–Ust–Kamenogorsk roadway in Kazakhstan; Addis project-risk probability and project-risk impact matrices are con-
Ababa–Djibouti railway in Ethiopia; Mombasa–Nairobi standard- structed using expert opinions about the probability and impact of
gauge railway in Kenya; Pualu Muara Besar petrochemical plant risks for projects in that region. The elements in the matrix re-
in Brunei; Port of Gwadar in Pakistan; National Motorway M-4 present fuzzy values of the probability of risk and the impact of
Section Gojra–Shorkot–Khanewal in Pakistan; E-35 expressway in risks, which are obtained in the previous step. The number of rows
Pakistan; Padma Bridge in Bangladesh; Port of Hambantota in in project-risk probability and project-risk impact matrices is equal
Sri Lanka; Matara–Beliatta southern railway in Sri Lanka; Port of to the number of experts working in the particular region, and the

© ASCE 04019082-6 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(12): 04019082

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUNY at Stony Brook on 09/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Linguistic scale for fuzzification process.

number of columns is equal to the number of risks. The project-risk 1X m

q~ k ¼ i~ ð4Þ
probability matrix is m j¼1 j;k
2 3
p~ 11 · · · p~ 1n
6 7 where i~j;k = fuzzy value of impact of kth risk assessed by jth expert,
6 . .. .. 7
P~ ri ¼ 6 .. . . 7 ð1Þ which is extracted from project-risk impact matrix; m = number of
4 5
experts working in region; and q~ k = aggregated value of impact of
p~ m1 · · · p~ mn kth risk at regional level.
The output of this step is the probability and impact row matrices
where n = number of risks; m = number of experts working on for every region. The probability row matrix consists of elements
projects in region ri ; ri ¼ ith region; p~ j;k = fuzzy value of prob- that represent the probability of risks at the regional level assessed
ability of kth risk evaluated by jth expert; and P~ ri = project-risk by an aggregation of experts’ opinions. The elements of the prob-
probability matrix for region ri . ability row matrix are l~k . Correspondingly, the impact row matrix
In this case, the number of risks is equal to 33, and the number consists of the impact of risks at the regional level.
of experts is different for each region.
Similarly, a project-risk impact matrix is constructed: Step 4. Assessment of Risks at Regional Level, Assessment
2 3 of Regional Risks, and Defuzzification Method
i~11 · · · i~1n The fuzzy value of total risk for every region is assessed by multi-
6 7
6 .. 7
I~ri ¼ 6 ... .. plying the probability of risk by the impact of risk and the equation
. . 7 ð2Þ
4 5 is given as follows:
i~m1 · · · i~mn
r~ k ¼ l~k ðÞq~ k ð5Þ
where n = number of risks; m = number of experts working on
where r~k = fuzzy value of kth risk for particular region; l~k = prob-
projects in region ri ; i~j;k = fuzzy value of impact of kth risk evalu- ability of kth risk taken from probability row matrix for particular
ated by jth expert; and I~ri = project-risk impact matrix for region ri . region; and ir~ k = impact of kth risk taken from impact row matrix
for particular region.
Step 3. Fuzzy Aggregation of Probability and Impact of Using the probability and impact row matrices of each region,
Risks from Different Experts in Each Region the fuzzy values of the probability of regional risk and the impact
To determine values of the probability and impact of risks at the of regional risk are estimated. On the assumption that all risks in a
regional level, expert opinions on the probability and impact of risks region are independent, the probability of regional risk can be esti-
in every region are aggregated into a single fuzzy value. On the mated using the following equation from the probabilistic approach:
assumption that expert opinions are individual and independent, the
likelihood of risk occurrence in a particular region can be aggre- Y
n

gated by the following equation from probability theory: L~ ri ¼ 1 − ð1 − l~k Þ ð6Þ

k¼1
Y
m
l~k ¼ 1 − ð1 − p~ j;k Þ ð3Þ where n = number of risks; l~k = probability of kth risk taken from
j¼1
probability row matrix for region ri ; and L~ ri = fuzzy value of prob-
where p~ j;k = fuzzy value of probability of kth risk assessed by jth ability of region ri .
expert, which is extracted from the project-risk probability matrix; Similarly to Eq. (4) in which the aggregation of different risk
opinions about the total impact of risk is calculated, the impacts
m = number of experts working in region; and l~k = aggregated value
of risks in a region are calculated as
of probability of kth risk on regional level.
Since the impacts of risks determined by different experts
1X n
are equally important, the aggregated impact of risk is then calcu- Q~ ri ¼ q~ ð7Þ
lated as n k¼1 k

© ASCE 04019082-7 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(12): 04019082

 2 3
where n = number of risks; q~ k = impact of kth risk taken from im- l~1;1 ··· l~1;n
pact row matrix for region ri ; and Q ~ r = fuzzy value of impact of 6 7
6 .. .. .. 7
regional risk for region ri .
i
P~ ¼ 6 . . . 7 ð11Þ
4 5
Further, the risk score of a region is estimated by multiplying the
l~num;1 ··· l~num;n
fuzzy values of the probability of regional risk by the impact of
regional risk. The equation to calculate this is
where n = number of risks; num = number of regions; l~j;k = fuzzy
R~ ri ¼ L~ ri ðÞQ~ ri ð8Þ value of probability of kth risk for jth region; and P~ = regional-risk
probability matrix.
In the same way, a regional-risk impact matrix is constructed:
where L~ ri = fuzzy value of probability of regional risk for region ri ;
~ r = fuzzy value of impact of regional risk for region ri ; and R~ r = 2 3
Q i i q~ 1;1 ··· q~ 1;n
risk of region ri . 6 7
6 . .. .. 7
The defuzzification process transforms fuzzy values of risks into I~ ¼ 6 .. . . 7 ð12Þ
4 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUNY at Stony Brook on 09/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

deterministic values with the application of certain methods. In this

q~ num;1 · · · q~ num;n
case, five different defuzzification methods are selected and used
for risk assessment. A sensitivity analysis is carried out to select
where n = number of risks; num = number of regions; q~ j;k = fuzzy
the most suitable defuzzification method for the proposed fuzzy
logic–based method. The five selected defuzzification methods value of impact of kth risk for jth region; and I~ = regional-risk
are described in what follows. impact matrix.
The weighted-average method is based on the sum of each
Step 6. Fuzzy Aggregation of Risks in Regional-Risk
membership function weighted by its maximum value of member-
Probability and Regional-Risk Impact Matrix
ship. The numerical values of risks are calculated according to the
The next step is to calculate the total risk values on the BRI level;
following equation (Zeng et al. 2007):
hence, the probability and impact of risks from different regions
Pk are aggregated into single values. Similarly to the previous aggre-
i¼1 ȳi  μðȳi Þ
R¼ P k
ð9Þ gation process of the probabilities of risks, the applied equation is
i¼1 μðȳi Þ as follows:

where k = total number of fuzzy sets in linguistic scale; ȳi = center Y

num

of ith fuzzy set; and μðȳi Þ = membership function of ith matching a~ k ¼ 1 − ð1 − l~j;k Þ ð13Þ
j¼1
fuzzy set.
The smallest-of-maximum method determines the smallest value where a~ k = fuzzy value of probability of kth risk; num = number of
of the fuzzy domain with the maximum value of the membership
regions; and l~j;k = fuzzy value of probability of kth risk for jth
function.
region.
The mean-of-maximum method represents the mean value of
Since the impacts of regional risks are equally valued, the ag-
the fuzzy domain with the maximum value of the membership
gregation formula for the impact of risks is given as follows:
function.
The largest-of-maximum method determines the highest value 1 Xnum
of the fuzzy domain with the maximum value of the membership b~ k ¼ q~ ð14Þ
num j¼1 j;k
function.
The center-of-gravity method is based on the center of gravity
of the fuzzy sets. The total area obtained by combined control ac- where b~ k = fuzzy value of impact of kth risk; num = number of
tion is divided into subareas. Further, the sum of the product sub- ~ j;k = fuzzy value of impact of kth risk for jth region.
regions; and ir
areas and center of gravity of each subarea is estimated, which is
the result. The deterministic values are calculated using the follow- Step 7. Assess Total Risks and Defuzzification Process
ing equation: The fuzzy value of the total risk for every region is assessed by
multiplying the probability of risk by the impact of risk, and the
Pk equation is as follows:
i¼1 Āi  x̄i
R¼ P k
ð10Þ
i¼1 Āi c~ k ¼ a~ k ðÞb~ k ð15Þ

where k = total number of fuzzy sets in linguistic scale; Āi = area of
ith subarea; and x̄i = center of gravity of ith fuzzy set.
Step 5. Form Regional-Risk Probability and Regional-Risk
Impact Matrix
The regional-risk probability and impact matrices are proposed to
assess total risks on the initiative level based on the probability and
the impact of risks in different regions. The regional-risk proba-
bility matrix is formed from the probability row matrices of differ-
ent regions obtained in Step 3, while the regional–risk impact
matrix is formed from the impact row matrices of different regions
obtained in Step 3. The number of rows is equal to the number of
different regions in the BRI, and the number of columns is equal to
the number of risks. The regional-risk probability matrix is
where c~ k = fuzzy value of kth risk; a~ k = fuzzy value of probability
of kth risk; and b~ k = fuzzy value of impact of kth risk.
Further, the defuzzification process is applied to convert the
fuzzy values of each risk into numerical values using the suggested
defuzzification methods in Step 4.
Results
To validate the obtained results and to select the best fuzzy configu-
ration, risks for different regions and total risks are estimated by the
probabilistic approach and significant risk index since these two
methods are widely used for risk assessment in the construction
industry. Further, an F-test is applied for the selection of the most

© ASCE 04019082-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(12): 04019082

 Table 4. F-test for different defuzzification methods
Method East Asia Central Asia South Asia Southeast Asia Middle East East Africa East Europe Total
Weighted average 0.920 0.915 1.065 1.023 0.934 1.294 1.110 0.744
Smallest of maximum 0.874 0.810 0.326 0.282 1.568 0.449 0.399 6.711
Medium of maximum 0.737 0.713 0.385 0.309 1.529 0.412 ∞ ∞
Largest of maximum 0.619 0.619 0.434 0.322 1.229 0.371 0.398 6.738
Center of gravity 0.630 3.137 1.491 1.437 1.687 1.161 4.415 1.217

Table 5. Risk score for each risk in different regions, total risks, and total regional risk according to weighted average defuzzification method
Risk East Asia Central Asia South Asia Southeast Asia Middle East East Africa East Europe Total
Geopolitical 0.325 0.416 0.456 0.410 0.454 0.395 0.554 0.435
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUNY at Stony Brook on 09/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Credit 0.290 0.532 0.464 0.399 0.429 0.395 0.532 0.444

Cooperation between two countries 0 0.409 0.483 0.458 0.446 0.464 0.488 0.463
Economic 0.341 0.674 0.461 0.384 0.429 0.547 0.606 0.498
Legal 0.335 0.449 0.468 0.423 0.419 0.520 0.486 0.456
Political 0.3 0.582 0.499 0.410 0.503 0.442 0.505 0.475
Social 0 0.488 0.476 0.404 0.427 0.454 0.568 0.476
Cultural differences 0 0.432 0.423 0.410 0.428 0.450 0.568 0.459
Different religious background 0 0.432 0.476 0.431 0.505 0.399 0.503 0.464
Force majeure 0.405 0.477 0.484 0.351 0.426 0.341 0.567 0.444
Unforeseeable ground conditions 0.362 0.424 0.483 0.410 0.416 0.288 0.528 0.422
Noise pollution 0.370 0.356 0.36 0.368 0.375 0.292 0.503 0.383
Soil and water pollution 0.373 0.418 0.369 0.373 0.403 0.330 0.505 0.4
Weather conditions 0.384 0.775 0.472 0.387 0.490 0.416 0.439 0.479
Design errors 0.294 0.474 0.413 0.397 0.438 0.432 0.586 0.442
Inadequate design quality 0.318 0.484 0.400 0.388 0.428 0.398 0.559 0.433
Changes in design 0.339 0.451 0.378 0.379 0.292 0.363 0.519 0.409
Poor access to construction site 0.339 0.647 0.413 0.498 0.414 0.419 0.499 0.467
Poor organization of construction site 0.297 0.665 0.451 0.428 0.524 0.393 0.501 0.480
Lack of equipment 0.357 0.464 0.459 0.466 0.505 0.392 0.462 0.458
Breakdown of equipment 0.364 0.464 0.459 0.465 0.476 0.333 0.494 0.451
Delay in equipment delivery 0.376 0.608 0.491 0.451 0.508 0.451 0.499 0.49
Increase in cost of equipment use 0.364 0.644 0.483 0.472 0.476 0.483 0.439 0.488
Poor quality of materials 0.291 0.772 0.467 0.410 0.498 0.397 0.605 0.498
Increase in cost of materials 0.388 0.806 0.503 0.459 0.579 0.438 0.514 0.544
Delay in supplying materials 0.390 0.713 0.510 0.518 0.514 0.469 0.514 0.533
Lack of labor 0.382 0.609 0.395 0.419 0.541 0.363 0.558 0.479
Poor management skills of project managers 0.296 0.605 0.450 0.459 0.527 0.392 0.520 0.483
Lack of coordination between different sectors 0.354 0.599 0.447 0.469 0.494 0.341 0.514 0.469
Poor team communication 0.330 0.508 0.452 0.491 0.510 0.294 0.564 0.464
Inadequate quality control 0.354 0.558 0.385 0.403 0.478 0.293 0.561 0.445
Accident occurrence 0.331 0.494 0.387 0.418 0.445 0.293 0.583 0.437
Safety measures on the site 0.351 0.482 0.364 0.415 0.441 0.293 0.612 0.437
Total regional risk 0.348 0.557 0.445 0.424 0.467 0.406 0.527 —

suitable defuzzification method since it can accurately compare
variances related to distributions corresponding to each defuzzifi-
cation method and data obtained by the PSA and SRI methods.
According to the results in Table 4, it is concluded that the F-test
performs best for the weighted-average function for risk assessment
in each region and overall. Hence, the weighted-average method is
selected as the best defuzzification function for the proposed fuzzy
system. Risk scores for risks in different regions and total risks on
the BRI level are calculated using the proposed fuzzy logic–based
method and weighted-average as the defuzzification method. The
obtained results are summarized in Table 5.
Discussions
The most critical risk in BRI projects on the overall level is the
increase in material prices, and it is included among the critical
risks in East Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East.
The increase in material prices is common in construction projects
owing to their long duration, which can exceed 7 years in the case
of seaport projects. During a longer period of time, prices of ma-
terials fluctuate because of inflation and demands in the construc-
tion market.
Delay in supplying materials is the second ranked risk overall in
BRI projects and it is among the critical risks in East Asia, Central
Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and East Africa.
Materials are essential in construction, so a delay in supplying ma-
terials leads to interruptions in construction work in BRI projects
and can affect projects in terms of meeting deadlines.
In third place is economic risk, and it is also a high-ranked risk
in Central Asia, East Africa, and Eastern Europe. Economic risk is
related to inflation, interest rate fluctuations, changes in exchange
rates between the local currency, Chinese yuan, and the US dollar,
taxes, price instability, cash flow imbalances, and other factors.
As economic risk, the poor quality of materials shares the same
rank since these risks have the same value for the critical risks in

© ASCE 04019082-9 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(12): 04019082

 BRI projects. In addition, poor quality of materials is ranked high
in Central Asia and Eastern Europe. The quality of material is im-
portant for the durability and performance of structure.
Delay in equipment delivery is essential for the construction
process. Hence, it is a high-ranked risk in BRI projects. Since the
majority of BRI projects are complex infrastructure projects that
require special equipment for their implementation, this equipment
should be ordered and delivered to the construction site on time. In
addition, a delay in equipment delivery is a critical risk in East Asia
and South Asia. Since countries in South Asia (e.g., Pakistan,
Bangladesh, and Nepal) are developing countries, equipment could
be insufficient or scarce. Therefore, contractors should provide the
necessary equipment by importing it from China. In this case, the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUNY at Stony Brook on 09/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
delivery of this equipment could take more time due to complex
customs procedures in some countries.
Like increases in material prices, an increase in the cost of
equipment use is one of the critical risks in BRI projects due to the
long implementation period. Usually, costs of equipment use rise
owing to inflation and demand for construction machinery and
equipment in the construction market. Higher demand for construc-
tion equipment in the construction market is usually accompanied
by increases in the price of equipment. In addition, increase in
the cost of equipment use is a critical risk in Southeast Asia and
East Africa regions.
Weather conditions are among the critical risks in East Asia and
Central Asia. BRI projects involves outdoor construction, which is
greatly affected by the weather since the speed of construction de-
pends on weather conditions. BRI projects are located in different
geographical areas with diverse climates, from cold climates with
long winters in northern China, Russia, Kazakhstan, and other
Central Asian countries to warm and humid tropical climates in
South and Southeast Asia. Workers must be prepared to work in
specific weather conditions, as well as to follow specific procedures
for construction work. Unfortunately, the weather is an uncontrol-
lable risk and its effects can be only mitigated.
Similarly to weather conditions, force majeure is an uncontrol-
lable, critical risk in East Asia and South Asia. There are no specific
recommendations to reduce this risk. However, a Chinese contrac-
tor can use insurance, as recommended by Zhou (2018).
Political risk related to the government of the host country
is among the critical risks in South Asia. Obtaining required per-
mits for construction in BRI projects is lengthy due to bureaucracy
and excessive procedures; in addition, changes in government
could affect the status of contracts entered into with the previous
government. Also, some countries in South Asia are politically un-
stable, for example, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Poor team communication has a high ranking in Southeast Asia
and the Middle East owing to the fact that teams on BRI projects are
international and consist of Chinese staff and local staff, and there
are language issues to contend with. To successfully deliver BRI
projects, good communication between team members is essential.
In Southeast Asia, poor access to construction site and lack of
coordination between different sectors are among the critical risks.
Access to construction sites is important for material and equip-
ment delivery and transportation to the site and other construction
processes. Lack of coordination between different sectors occurs
due to a lack of coordination among the different stakeholders,
investors, contractors, designers, and subcontractors.
Lack of labor and poor management skills of project manager
are high-ranked risks in the Middle East region. Owing to the in-
creased number of construction projects and labor deficiency on the
construction market in the Middle East, there is a need for workers.
One solution is to export the labor force. To reduce the risk of
© ASCE 04019082-10
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(12): 04019082
poor management skills of project managers, contractors should
employ experienced and skilled project management staff.
Cooperation between China and BRI countries and legal
risk are also critical risks in East Africa. Compared to traditional
international construction projects, BRI projects are the result of co-
operation and bilateral partnership agreements between the Chinese
and BRI country governments. Hence, risks that can affect the ex-
ecution of BRI projects in the host country are related to cooperation
and diplomatic relations between China and BRI countries. If cer-
tain issues arise in cooperative relationships between China and BRI
member countries, this can lead to project disruption. Legal risk is
associated with the legal system of a country. Laws can be complex,
incoherent, variable, and open to interpretation. Legal issues appear
due to changes in laws of planning and construction, rules, regula-
tions, contractual matters, and human rights.
Further, social risks, cultural differences, and safety measures
on construction sites are other high-ranked risks in Eastern Europe.
Language barrier between different stakeholders is a social risk
that could cause misunderstandings during project implementation
and could have major impacts on the achievement of project aims.
Besides a language barrier, another social risk is the acceptance of a
BRI project by the local community. Cultural difference is an im-
portant risk since Chinese contractors, who have an Asian cultural
background, will engage in construction work in Eastern Europe,
where Western culture is more dominant. Previous research showed
that differences between Asian and Western cultures are likely to
result in issues and arguments (Sim and Ali 2000). Since the con-
struction industry is prone to accidents, safety measures are neces-
sary to avoid or reduce their incidence.
Further, regional risks are calculated according to Steps 5–7 and
results are summarized in the last row of Table 5. From an invest-
or’s perspective, this information is useful for decision-making
about investing in a particular region. If an investor has to make
choices between different regions, this result can assist him in
decision-making and selecting a less-risky region.
According to the results in the last row of Table 5, Central Asia
is the highest ranked region, followed by Eastern Europe and
the Middle East, which are in second and third place, respectively.
Central Asia poses the highest risk since certain geopolitical chal-
lenges have arisen between China and Central Asian countries (Jian
2018). Relations between China and Central Asian are complex
since some parts of Central Asia were once part of ancient China,
and many Chinese ethnic groups still live in Central Asia. In addi-
tion, Central Asia serves as a kind of bond between China and
Western Asia and Europe. Similarly, the Balkans resembles a bridge
between China and Western Europe, with the purpose of promoting
Beijing–Brussels relations (Jian 2018). The main challenges in
Central Asia and Eastern Europe regions are reflected in geopolitical
competition, domestic political disputes, social unrest for Chinese
investment, and China’s own geopolitics issues (Jian 2018). On
the other hand, East Asia is the lowest ranked region since China
initiated the BRI.
Limitations of Study
The limitations of this study are as follows. First, the focus of this
study is on the critical risks in construction projects implemented
under the BRI, so the findings are significant for all stakeholders
participating in BRI construction projects. Second, the results are
based on a limited data sample of 106 responses for the assessment
of overall BRI risks and even smaller samples for regions. Hence,
the limited number of responses may not accurately reflect all BRI
projects. Therefore, results should not be treated as conclusive
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 but rather as indicative. Third, BRI is constantly expanding, and
the number of BRI members changes over time since this initiative
is open to all countries around the world, even if they are not lo-
cated on the historic Silk Road route. Currently, 77 countries have
joined the BRI. As new members join BRI and new projects are
undertaken in these regions, the number of regions in BRI will rise.
Finally, the proposed model is designed for the risk assessment
of complex and geographically distributed projects located in dif-
ferent regions since model outcomes produce results for risks in
each region separately, regional risk, and total risk.
Conclusions
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUNY at Stony Brook on 09/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
BRI infrastructure projects are of international importance not only
for China but for all countries along the Silk Road since they bring
major opportunities for improving connectivity between different
regions in China and other countries, socioeconomic development,
jobs, integration of regional energy markets, optimization of the
distribution of energy sources, increased trade between China and
BRI countries, increased freight and passenger volume, opportuni-
ties for Chinese contractors to “go global,” technology transfer,
more schools and hospitals, cultural and educational exchanges, and
other benefits. In this paper, the differences between international
construction and BRI projects are highlighted, additional risks in
BRI projects are identified, and a fuzzy logic–based method of risk
assessment is developed and applied to the risk assessment of BRI
projects. Overall, 33 different risks potentially affecting BRI project
performance are identified, and they are categorized into three
groups: BRI, construction market, and project. Compared to tradi-
tional projects, BRI projects are exposed to more risks: geopolitical
risks, credit risk, and cooperation between the Chinese and BRI
governments. Hence, the theoretical contributions of this paper are
related to the theory of risk assessment of large-scale, complex, and
geographically distributed infrastructure projects by identifying and
categorizing risks in BRI projects and developing a novel risk as-
sessment method that integrates expert judgment, fuzzy sets, fuzzy
logic, fuzzy matrices, and probability theory into a single approach
supported by sensitivity analysis.
The risk assessment of BRI projects demonstrated the appli-
cability of the proposed fuzzy logic–based method for large-scale,
complex, and geographically distributed infrastructure projects.
The fuzzy logic–based method is shown to be a systematic, effi-
cient, and practical tool for the risk assessment of infrastructure
projects. According to sensitivity analysis, the weighted-average
method provides the best results according to F-tests and was se-
lected as a defuzzification method for fuzzy systems. Further, this
method can be applied to the risk assessment of other complex proj-
ects in various geographical locations, as well as projects in other
engineering fields.
The practical contributions of this study are results related to
risk levels in different regions of BRI projects, regional risks,
and overall risks in the BRI. The results show that the greatest risks
in BRI projects are delays in material supplies, increases in material
costs, economic risks, poor quality of materials, delay in equipment
delivery, and increased costs of equipment use. From a contractor’s
perspective, these results give insight into the critical risks associ-
ated with BRI projects and can be used to develop suitable strat-
egies for managing these critical risks. The most critical regions on
the Silk Road are Central Asia and Eastern Europe, while East Asia
poses the lowest risk. From an investor’s perspective, this informa-
tion will be helpful in decision-making about investing in the vari-
ous regions. Since the construction aspect of BRI infrastructure
projects is slated to be completed by 2030, this study provides
© ASCE 04019082-11
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(12): 04019082
information that will be valuable to countries and their governments
planning to join the BRI, international organizations and compa-
nies, investors, Chinese enterprises, and others.
Data Availability Statement
Data generated or analyzed during the study are available from the
corresponding author by request. Information about the Journal’s
data-sharing policy can be found at the following link: https://
ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CO.1943-7862
.0001263.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China (Project ID 71272088) and China Postdoctoral
Science Foundation (Grant No. 2017M622743). The authors are
very grateful to Dr. Pei Tang for his support in data collection.
References
Andrić, J. M., and D. G. Lu. 2016. “Risk assessment of bridges under
multiple hazards in operation period.” Saf. Sci. 83 (Mar): 80–92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.11.001.
Andrić, J. M., J. Wang, P. X. W. Zou, and R. Zhong. 2017. “Critical risk
identification in one belt-one road highway project in Serbia.” In Proc.,
22nd Int. Conf. on Advancement of Construction Management and Real
Estate, 252–259. Melbourne, Australia: Chinese Research Institute of
Construction Management.
Andrić, J. M., J. Wang, P. X. W. Zou, and R. Zhong. 2018. “The conceptual
model of the Belt and Road infrastructure projects.” In Proc., 23rd
Int. Symp. on Advancement of Construction Management and Real
Estate. Guiyang, China: Chinese Research Institute of Construction
Management.
Assaf, S. A., and S. Al-Hejji. 2006. “Causes of delay in large construction
projects.” Int. J. Project Manage. 24 (4): 349–357. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.010.
Belayutham, S., V. A. González, and T. W. Yiu. 2016. “Clean–lean admin-
istrative processes: A case study on sediment pollution during construc-
tion.” J. Cleaner Prod. 126 (Jul): 134–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.jclepro.2016.02.091.
Blanchard, J.-M. F., and C. Flint. 2017. “The geopolitics of China’s mari-
time silk road initiative.” Geopolitics 22 (2): 223–245. https://doi.org/10
.1080/14650045.2017.1291503.
Campos, I. D. 2015. “One belt & one road: Between cooperation and
geopolitics in the Silk Road.” Contacto Global 6: 18–25.
Chang, T., X. Deng, J. Zuo, and J. Yuan. 2017. “Political risks in Central
Asian countries: Factors and strategies.” J. Manage. Eng. 34 (2):
04017059. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000588.
Dikmen, I., M. T. Birgonul, and S. Han. 2007. “Using fuzzy risk assessment
to rate cost overrun risk in international construction projects.” Int. J.
Project Manage. 25 (5): 494–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman
.2006.12.002.
Duckstein, L. 1995. Vol. 8 of Fuzzy rule-based modeling with applications
to geophysical, biological, and engineering systems. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
El-Sayegh, S. M., and M. H. Mansour. 2015. “Risk assessment and
allocation in highway construction projects in the UAE.” J. Manage.
Eng. 31 (6): 04015004. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479
.0000365.
Fallon, T. 2015. “The new Silk Road: Xi Jinping’s grand strategy for
Eurasia.” Am. Foreign Policy Interests 37 (3): 140–147. https://doi
.org/10.1080/10803920.2015.1056682.
Gracia, M. D., and L. E. Quezada. 2016. “A framework for strategy for-
mulation in sustainable supply chains: A case study in the electric
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 industry.” NETNOMICS: Econ. Res. Electron. Networking 17 (1): 3–27.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11066-015-9098-3.
Heckerman, D. 1997. “Bayesian networks for data mining.” Data Min. Knowl.
Discovery 1 (1): 79–119. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009730122752.
Huang, Y. 2016. “Understanding China’s Belt & Road Initiative: Motiva-
tion, framework and assessment.” China Econ. Rev. 40 (Sep): 314–321.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2016.07.007.
Hudyma, N., and C. J. Fox. 2016. “Differing site conditions—Engineering
and legal perspectives.” In Proc., Geotechnical and Structural Engi-
neering Congress, 239–251. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Ivezić, D., M. Tanasijević, and D. Ignjatović. 2008. “Fuzzy approach to
dependability performance evaluation.” Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 24 (7):
779–792. https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.926.
Jian, J. 2018. “China in Central Asia and the Balkans: Challenges from a
geopolitical perspective.” In The Belt & Road Initiative in the global
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUNY at Stony Brook on 09/30/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
arena, 241–261. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kantová, R. 2017. “Construction machines as a source of construction
noise.” Procedia Eng. 190: 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng
.2017.05.312.
Kartam, N. A., and S. A. Kartam. 2001. “Risk and its management in
the Kuwaiti construction industry: A contractors’ perspective.” Int.
J. Project Manage. 19 (6): 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263
-7863(00)00014-4.
Khodeir, L. M., and A. H. M. Mohamed. 2017. “Identifying the latest
risk probabilities affecting construction projects in Egypt according
to political and economic variables. From January 2011 to January
2013.” HBRC J. 11 (1): 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2014
.03.007.
Kuo, Y. C., and S. T. Lu. 2013. “Using fuzzy multiple criteria decision
making approach to enhance risk assessment for metropolitan construc-
tion projects.” Int. J. Project Manage. 31 (4): 602–614. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.10.003.
Kwon, N., M. Park, H.-S. Lee, J. Ahn, and M. Shin. 2016. “Construction
noise management using active noise control techniques.” J. Constr.
Eng. Manage. 142 (7): 04016014. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO
.1943-7862.0001121.
Liu, J., X. Zhao, and P. Yan. 2016. “Risk paths in international construction
projects: Case study from Chinese contractors.” J. Constr. Eng. Man-
age. 142 (6): 05016002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0001116.
Makui, A., S. M. Mojtahedi, and S. M. Mousavi. 2010. “Project risk iden-
tification and analysis based on group decision making methodology
in a fuzzy environment.” Int. J. Manage. Sci. Eng. Manage. 5 (2):
108–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2010.10671098.
Möller, B., and M. Beer. 2013. Fuzzy randomness: Uncertainty in civil
engineering and computational mechanics. Berlin: Springer.
Moser, C. A., and G. Kalton. 2017. Survey methods in social investigation.
2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Niedermayer, D. 2008. “An introduction to Bayesian networks and their
contemporary applications.” In Innovations in Bayesian networks,
117–130. Berlin: Springer.
Norwood, S. R., and N. R. Mansfield. 1999. “Joint venture issues concern-
ing European and Asian construction markets of the 1990’s.” Int. J.
Project Manage. 17 (2): 89–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863
(98)00016-7.
Ott, R. L., and M. T. Longnecker. 2015. An introduction to statistical meth-
ods and data analysis. Boston: Nelson Education.
Park, H., K.-W. Lee, H. D. Jeong, and S. H. Han. 2014. “Effect of institu-
tional risks on the performance of international construction projects.”
In Proc., Construction Research Congress 2014, 2126–2135. Reston,
VA: ASCE.
Pinto, A., I. L. Nunes, and R. A. Ribeiro. 2011. “Occupational risk assess-
ment in construction industry—Overview and reflection.” Saf. Sci.
49 (5): 616–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.01.003.
Razzaq, A., M. J. Thaheem, A. Maqsoom, and H. F. Gabriel. 2018. “Criti-
cal external risks in international joint ventures for construction industry
in Pakistan.” Int. J. Civ. Eng. 16 (2): 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s40999-016-0117-z.
© ASCE 04019082-12
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2019, 145(12): 04019082
Ross, T. J. 2009. Fuzzy logic with engineering applications. Chichester,
UK: Wiley.
Rutkauskas, A. V. 2008. “On the sustainability of regional competitiveness
development considering risk.” Technol. Econ. Dev. Economy 14 (1):
89–99. https://doi.org/10.3846/2029-0187.2008.14.89-99.
Sadeghi, A., and T. Larimian. 2018. “Sustainable electricity generation
mix for Iran: A fuzzy analytic network process approach.” Sustainable
Energy Technol. Assess. 28 (Aug): 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta
.2018.04.001.
Sambasivan, M., and Y. W. Soon. 2007. “Causes and effects of delays
in Malaysian construction industry.” Int. J. Project Manage. 25 (5):
517–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.11.007.
Shapiro, A. F., and M. C. Koissi. 2017. “Fuzzy logic modifications of the
analytic hierarchy process.” Insurance: Math. Econ. 75 (Jul): 189–202.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.insmatheco.2017.05.003.
Shen, L., G. W. Wu, and C. S. Ng. 2001. “Risk assessment for construction
joint ventures in China.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 127 (1): 76–81.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)127:1(76).
Sim, A., and M. Y. Ali. 2000. “Determinants of stability in international joint
ventures: Evidence from a developing country context.” Asia Pac. J.
Manage. 17 (3): 373–397. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015830130499.
Towers, D. A. 2001. “Mitigation of community noise impacts from night-
time construction.” In Proc., Construction Institute Sessions at ASCE
Civil Engineering Conf., 106–120. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Wang, J., P. X. Zou, and P. P. Li. 2016. “Critical factors and paths influ-
encing construction workers’ safety risk tolerances.” Accid. Anal. Prev.
93 (Aug): 267–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.11.027.
Wang, J. J., Y. Y. Jing, C. F. Zhang, and J. H. Zhao. 2009. “Review on
multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-
making.” Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 13 (9): 2263–2278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.021.
Wang, J.-Y., and H.-P. Yuan. 2011. “Major cost-overrun risks in con-
struction projects in China.” Int. J. Project Organ. Manage. 3 (3–4):
227–242. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPOM.2011.042030.
Wang, M.-T., and H.-Y. Chou. 2003. “Risk allocation and risk handling of
highway projects in Taiwan.” J. Manage. Eng. 19 (2): 60–68. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2003)19:2(60).
Wang, S. Q., M. F. Dulaimi, and M. Y. Aguria. 2004. “Risk manage-
ment framework for construction projects in developing countries.”
Constr. Manage. Econ. 22 (3): 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1080
/0144619032000124689.
Winter, T. 2016. “One belt, one road, one heritage: Cultural diplomacy
and the Silk Road.” Accessed March 2, 2018. https://thediplomat.com
/2016/03/one-belt-one-road-one-heritage-cultural-diplomacy-and-the-silk
-road/.
Zadeh, L. A. 1965. “Information and control.” Fuzzy Sets 8 (3): 338–353.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X.
Zayed, T., M. Amer, and J. Pan. 2008. “Assessing risk and uncertainty in-
herent in Chinese highway projects using AHP.” Int. J. Project Manage.
26 (4): 408–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.05.012.
Zeng, J., M. An, and N. J. Smith. 2007. “Application of a fuzzy based
decision making methodology to construction project risk assessment.”
Int. J. Project Manage. 25 (6): 589–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.ijproman.2007.02.006.
Zhao, X., B. G. Hwang, and Y. Gao. 2016. “A fuzzy synthetic evaluation
approach for risk assessment: A case of Singapore’s green projects.”
J. Cleaner Prod. 115: 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015
.11.042.
Zhao, X., B. G. Hwang, and G. S. Yu. 2013. “Identifying the critical risks in
underground rail international construction joint ventures: Case study of
Singapore.” Int. J. Project Manage. 31 (4): 554–566. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ijproman.2012.10.014.
Zhou, Y. 2018. “Make use of insurance to avoid risks in BRI construction.”
Accessed March 2, 2018. https://eng.yidaiyilu.gov.cn/ghsl/wksl/45249
.htm.
Zou, P. X., G. Zhang, and J. Wang. 2007. “Understanding the key risks
in construction projects in China.” Int. J. Project Manage. 25 (6):
601–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.03.001.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.