The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
War-risk resilience in Jordanian construction projects: expert evaluation of a trigger–operations–contract framework and a contract-operationalization toolkit in urban contexts
Open accessAbstract
Armed conflicts and geopolitical crises increasingly disrupt construction supply chains, financing, and project governance. In politically exposed regions, even indirect escalation of war can trigger security restrictions, corridor closures, import delays, and banking frictions. Jordan’s construction sector is particularly vulnerable due to its reliance on imported materials and corridor-based logistics, and because many projects already face chronic delays under normal conditions. This study develops and evaluates a project-level war-risk management framework for Jordanian construction that operationalizes a Trigger–Operations–Contract (TOC) logic: monitored escalation signals (triggers) are explicitly linked to predefined site responses (operations) and to contract-compliant administrative steps. The framework comprises eight components: Protection & Preparedness; Situational Monitoring & Triggers; Supply Chain & Operations; Contract, Force Majeure & Claims; Stakeholder & Communication Management; Financial & Business Continuity; Risk Register, Review & Learning; and Jordan & Regional Context. It is designed for two-tier deployment (“Full” for large/complex projects and “Lite” for typical smaller projects). Structured expert opinions ( n = 50) were collected through five evaluation questions (coverage, contextual realism, logical coherence, practicality, and improvement priorities), each answered with an optimistic/most-likely/pessimistic orientation and an open-ended justification. A transparent, rule-based coding protocol was applied to 250 responses and validated by independent double-coding of a 50-comment sample (94.6% agreement). Results showed that experts base perceived adequacy on contract operability and procedural clarity. Dominant themes include aligning the trigger–action chain with contract administration and FIDIC-type requirements, explicitly defining triggers/thresholds/matrices, and establishing clear procedures for notice/evidence/records. Implementation concerns are substantial: experts call for a simplified “Lite” version for typical projects and warn that an overly heavy framework may “sit on the shelf.” In response, this study proposes a TOC-based contract-operationalization annex and a practical toolkit (trigger matrix, war-risk register, ERP outline, communication plan, and notice letter templates). The framework is presented as a contribution to the resilience and continuity of urban construction projects in Jordan and aligns with SDG 11 (Sustainable cities and communities).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists are queued
They are fetched later and appear here then.
References 16 · Cited by 1
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- Akintoye, 1997, Risk analysis and management in construction, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 15, 31, 10.1016/S0263-7863(96)00035-X · DOI · Paper page
- Al-Halaq, 2005, Causes of construction delays in Jordan, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 23, 449, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.03.008 · DOI
- Baloi, 2003, Modelling global risk factors affecting construction cost performance, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 21, 261, 10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00017-0 · DOI · Paper page
- Bosher, 2007, Integrating disaster risk management into construction: a UK perspective, Build. Res. Inf., 35, 163, 10.1080/09613210600979848 · DOI
- Bunni, 2003, Risk and Insurance in Construction, 10.4324/9780203476543 · DOI
- Chang, 2011, An integrated approach: managing resources for post-disaster reconstruction, Disasters, 35, 739, 10.1111/j.1467-7717.2011.01240.x · DOI
- Cheung, 2006, A study of styles and outcomes in construction dispute negotiation, J. Constr. Eng. Manag., 132, 804, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:8(804) · doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2006)132:8(804
- Clegg, 2002, Governmentality matters: designing an alliance culture of inter-organizational collaboration for managing projects, Organ. Stud., 23, 317, 10.1177/0170840602233002 · DOI
- El-Sayegh, 2008, Risk assessment and allocation in the UAE construction industry, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 26, 431, 10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.06.003 · DOI
- El-Sayegh, 2016, Risks in the construction industry in the Gulf region, Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag., 6, 297, 10.1108/BEPAM-04-2015-0019 · DOI
- El-Sayegh, 2015, Risk assessment and allocation in highway construction projects in the UAE, J. Manag. Eng., 31, 04015004, 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000358 · DOI
- Flyvbjerg, 2007, Policy and planning for large infrastructure projects: problems, causes, cures, Environ. Plann. B. Plann. Des., 34, 578, 10.1068/b32111 · DOI · Paper page
- Kumaraswamy, 1997, Conflicts, claims and disputes in construction, Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., 4, 95, 10.1108/eb021042 · DOI
- Loosemore, 1998, Social disruption in construction projects, Constr. Manag. Econ., 16, 17, 10.1080/014461998372556 · DOI
- Osei-Kyei, 2017, Risk assessment in public–private partnership infrastructure projects: empirical comparison between Ghana and Hong Kong, Constr. Innov., 17, 204, 10.1108/CI-12-2015-0066 · DOI
- Salem, 2026, Integrating artificial intelligence and multi-criteria analysis for sustainable hybrid renewable energy in healthcare facilities, Results Eng., 29, 109425, 10.1016/j.rineng.2026.109425 · DOI
- Suleiman, 2022, Causes and effects of poor communication in the construction industry in the MENA region, J. Civ. Eng. Manag., 28, 365, 10.3846/jcem.2022.16728 · DOI
- Thompson, 1992, Engineering construction risks: a guide to project risk analysis and risk management, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng., 94, 85, 10.1680/iicep.1992.18563 · DOI
- Wardak, 2019, Resilience in construction: a review of research and practice, Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ., 10, 269, 10.1108/IJDRBE-04-2019-0017 · DOI
- Yiu, 2007, A catastrophe model of construction conflict behavior, Build. Environ., 42, 2493, 10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.06.015 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Al-Btoush, M. A. K. A., Rawashdeh, T. M., Albtoush, F., Saraireh, I. M., & Mohammad, A.-R.
- Affiliations
- Isra University (PK)
- Jadara University (JO)
- Al-Zaytoonah University of Jordan (JO)
- Al-Balqa Applied University (JO)
- Corresponding author
- Al-Btoush, Mohammed A. K. A.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Sustainable Cities
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2026-06-22
- Volume
- 8
- ISSN
- 2624-9634 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W7165535250
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- FWCI
- 3.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Sustainable Cities (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Construction Project Management and Performance
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Supply Chain Resilience and Risk Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Public-Private Partnership Projects
- Keywords
- force majeure, construction contracts, supply chain disruption, urban construction, expert evaluation, SDG 11, business continuity, FIDIC
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: War-risk resilience in Jordanian construction projects: expert evaluation of a trigger–operations–contract framework and a contract-operationalization toolkit in urban contexts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/frsc.2026.1854004
- The paper
- Al-Btoush, M. A. K. A., Rawashdeh, T. M., Albtoush, F., Saraireh, I. M., & Mohammad, A.-R. (2026). War-risk resilience in Jordanian construction projects: expert evaluation of a trigger–operations–contract framework and a contract-operationalization toolkit in urban contexts. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2026.1854004
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
