Next Article in Journal
Digital Competences and Years of Access to Technologies Among Chilean University Students: An Analysis Based on the DIGCOMP Framework
Previous Article in Journal
Economic Decentralization and High-Quality Urban Development: Perspective from Local Effect and Spatial Spillover in 276 Prefecture-Level Cities in China
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Comprehensive Evaluation Model for Sustainable Supply Chain Capabilities in the Energy Sector
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 22
10.3390/su16229875
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analyzing the Nexus Between Project Constraints and Social Sustainability in Construction: A Case for a Developing Economy

by
Muhammad Shahzaib
1,
Arslan Aziz
1,
Kashan Fayyaz
1,
Muhammad Irfan
2,
Wesam Salah Alaloul
3,* and
Muhammad Ali Musarat
3
1
School of Engineering and the Built Environment, Birmingham City University, Birmingham B4 7XG, UK
2
Civil Engineering Department, HITEC University, Taxila 47080, Pakistan
3
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Bandar Seri Iskandar 32610, Perak, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(22), 9875; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229875
Submission received: 24 October 2024 / Revised: 8 November 2024 / Accepted: 11 November 2024 / Published: 12 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability Management Strategies and Practices—2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The construction industry plays a crucial role in the development of emerging economies; however, project constraints can pose significant challenges to achieving social sustainability. Therefore, this study investigates the nexus between project constraints and social sustainability factors within Pakistan’s construction industry. The study adopted a quantitative approach and analyzed the collected data through descriptive and inferential tests. Data were collected from 100 civil engineers registered with the Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC) through structured questionnaires. Analysis methods included the mean, standard deviation, Relative Importance Index (RII), and multiple regression tests. Cost (mean = 3.98) and time (mean = 3.90) emerged as the most significant project constraints, while poor safety on sites had the lowest means (3.49). In social sustainability factors, improving quality of life (mean = 3.73) ranked highest, with diversity in the workforce scoring lower (mean = 3.35). RII revealed cost (RII = 0.796) and time (RII = 0.780) as top constraints, while safety ranked lowest (RII = 0.698). Multiple regression showed that cost (slope = 0.390, p = 0.027) and unskilled workforce productivity (slope = 0.312, p = 0.073) significantly affect client social sustainability. Consultants prioritized poor productivity (slope = 0.623, p = 0.003), and contractors showed positive trends in cost and planning. The study highlights challenges like workforce skill gaps and safety enforcement, stressing the need for interventions to enhance social sustainability outcomes in Pakistan’s construction sector.

1. Introduction

Sustainability is sometimes defined as economic, environmental, and social sustainability, or, more generally, profits, planet, and people [1]. On the other hand, social sustainability emphasizes how economic policies affect people and calls for actions to fight inequality and end world hunger [2]. Hence, social sustainability must recognize and oversee initiatives that positively and negatively impact people. The quality of an organization’s relationships and interactions with stakeholders is highly valued. Companies affect the lives of their employees, consumers, partners in the value chain, and local communities directly or indirectly; thus, managing those impacts as soon as possible is critical [3].
Furthermore, social sustainability significantly impacts inhabitants’ health and well-being and their sense of place and pride in where they live and work [2,4]. To help the local economy, new construction projects should consider how well future societies can work and grow. Some might say that fast commercial and residential infrastructure growth can make it harder for people to get together [5]. In cases where social breakdown poses a severe threat, entirely new groupings may also be forced to come together. To improve resident health and welfare and promote the growth of the local economy, the stakeholders in Pakistan should work to create sustainable communities [6]. By building without considering social impact, stakeholders’ risk unintentionally produces a place with dysfunctional citizens [7,8]. Most nations have identified sustainable development as a top priority. The process of adhering to the three primary pillars of sustainability—environmental, economic, and social practices—that impact project performance is known as sustainability in construction [9].
A community serves as a hub for social interaction for members of a particular regional society. It serves as a community resource center and a social area for locals to meet their requirements. Therefore, community-sustainable building is the first step in achieving organized and prosperous city growth. Attaining sustainability is increasingly critical for gauging a project’s success [10]. Due to the complexity of building projects, it takes collaborative efforts from all key participants, including project customers, subcontractors, vendors, and the public, to effectively accomplish sustainability-related targets [7]. Because of these complexities in the construction projects, numerous project constraints such as time, cost, quality, resources, productivity, environment, safety, etc., hinder the projects’ success and community development, and different project constraints can hinder obtaining the social benefits of the construction projects [11].
To fully comprehend the local communities’ prerequisites, concerns, and goals, it is essential to interact and discuss with them. This will assist in resolving any potential detrimental effects on their way of life, accessibility to resources, or standard of living [12]. Promoting social sustainability requires improving the community’s well-being by creating jobs, educational opportunities, healthcare facilities, and infrastructure [13]. The industry may improve society by encouraging fair labor practices and keeping in mind the needs of the neighborhood community. This will enhance the industry’s ability to manage project constraints effectively.
One of the main economic pillars of Pakistan is now the construction sector [14]. Due to rising urbanization, construction development work is growing exponentially in Pakistan. However, these initiatives consistently perform poorly, primarily due to specific project constraints regarding cost, timeliness, and quality. As a result, construction projects may fail due to poor performance, significantly affected by economic, societal, and design considerations. In turn, these poor-performing projects negatively impact the communities [15]. Thus, the overall fabric of sustainable development in general and social sustainability in particular is severely affected. An essential factor that needs to be considered is social sustainability in Pakistan’s construction industry. It is necessary to ensure that construction operations are conducted in a socially sustainable way because the industry substantially impacts how the nation’s social fabric is shaped. This involves considering the well-being of neighborhood communities, equitable resource allocation, and encouraging ethical employment practices.
The inherent characteristics of construction projects significantly influence the communities and societies in which they are carried out [16]. The outcomes primarily hinge on the methodology employed in the evaluation, execution, and management of the projects. The construction sector continues to play a vital role in driving socioeconomic development by facilitating infrastructure growth and enhancing the quality of life through improved access to essential utilities and services [17]. However, many of the multipliers that are expected to emerge from these projects may extend beyond just economic and physical dimensions. Therefore, understanding the clear social connections of construction activities to the local community, workers, and environmental context is crucial.
Social sustainability refers to the ability of a society to maintain or improve its quality of life for future generations without compromising future standards to facilitate current development. Considering that construction serves as a framework for social sustainability, it continues to be a crucial factor influencing housing, public amenities, employment, community cohesion, and the health of residents [18]. For example, the enhancements of quality education, healthcare, and efficient transportation can all be expedited through thoughtfully designed and effectively executed intervention projects. Conversely, underdeveloped construction projects lead to project disruptions, displacement of occupants, environmental consequences, and social repercussions for individuals in the vicinity of the project.
In developed countries such as Pakistan, the influence of a construction project on social sustainability is highly important because urbanization and the increase in population put tremendous pressure on the construction industry [19]. In these contexts, construction projects can be seen as a continuous struggle to catch up with the demand for new construction projects while at the same time not disrupting social sustainability. Since Pakistan’s construction sector significantly contributes to the nation [20], the stakeholders must, however, consider the effects of projects on society. Therefore, social sustainability must be considered during the design stage before the construction starts. Before the start of a project, an emphasis on transparency and community consultation can go a long way toward minimizing any negative social repercussions. Additionally, social sustainability must be considered when choosing the building materials to be utilized, protecting workers’ rights, and creating safe working conditions for laborers. Therefore, social sustainability is a significant concern for Pakistan’s construction sector [21]. However, the coverage of the published literature in the context of social sustainability in Pakistan is limited in number [22], and even more, its linkage with the construction industry has not been sufficiently covered, thus making this a critical research gap. Therefore, the current study will fill this research gap and analyze the influence of social sustainability on Pakistan’s construction industry. The findings of the study will contribute to the body of knowledge with the provision of a framework for key stakeholders, decision makers, and top management to successfully implement social sustainability in the construction industry of Pakistan.

Study Contextualization

This study sought to examine the relationship between project constraints and social sustainability within Pakistan’s construction sector. Significantly, this study was not commissioned by any external group or governmental entity. Additionally, the study involved autonomous academic research undertaken by university-affiliated scholars, aimed at filling a gap in the existing literature. The authors underscored the shortage of research connecting project constraints to social sustainability in Pakistan, indicating the aim to enhance the existing knowledge in this domain. This study aims to offer insights that assist stakeholders and policymakers in incorporating social sustainability into project management, therefore enhancing community welfare and sustainable development in the construction sector.
Moreover, the findings of this study will be used as a valuable resource for key stakeholders in the construction sector, including project managers, contractors, consultants, and policymakers in Pakistan. This research will enhance the understanding of the impacts of project constraints on social sustainability within construction projects. By examining the constraints that significantly hinder social sustainability, stakeholders can more effectively identify the factors that require intervention, such as cost overruns, time limitations, safety measure violations, and decreased workforce productivity. The identified issues could assist policymakers in recognizing existing project management deficiencies and exploring how advanced planning and socially responsible strategies might enhance community welfare.
Additionally, the findings can inform the creation of training and development workshops aimed at improving workforce efficiency and enhancing worker safety. The study provides an initial framework for integrating social sustainability as a guiding principle throughout the project lifecycle, emphasizing the importance of fair treatment of workers and the equitable allocation of resources. Decision makers can utilize the findings to create suitable regulations that promote economic growth while ensuring sustainable social progress. Furthermore, leaders in the field can utilize the data to foster constructive interactions, collaborating closely with community members on construction projects to guarantee alignment with social sustainability, which stands as a fundamental principle in development initiatives.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

A research design is a strategy for answering research questions with empirical data [23]. It ensures that the type of the analysis applied to the collected data aligns with the research objectives and supports the investigation. In this study, the research design is quantitative, focusing on analyzing the influence of project constraints on social sustainability within Pakistan’s construction industry. The aim is to understand how key constraints like cost, time, safety, and workforce productivity affect social sustainability outcomes, such as improving the quality of life and promoting diversity in the workforce.
A structured questionnaire survey was developed as the primary tool for data collection. The questionnaire consists of closed-ended questions designed to capture quantitative data from the respondents. The questions focus on project constraints such as cost, time, safety, workforce productivity, and social sustainability factors like improving quality of life, promoting diversity, and creating community well-being. The use of closed-ended questions allows for a more streamlined data collection process, making it easier to quantify the results and apply a statistical analysis.
The questionnaire was distributed through multiple channels, including email and online professional networks such as LinkedIn® (Mountain View, CA, USA). Given the constraints of time and the geographical dispersion of respondents, distributing the survey through these platforms maximized the response rate and ensured that a diverse range of professionals could participate. The respondents, who are registered civil engineers affiliated with PEC, were asked to rate their responses on a Likert scale, allowing for the application of various statistical tests.

2.2. Sampling Technique and Data Collection

In this study, a simple random sampling technique was used to select an adequate and nearly equal group of professionals from the Pakistan construction consultancy industry including consultants, contractors, and clients. The use of random sampling was informed by the fact that the researchers wanted to capture the true nature of the industry by obtaining a sample that was as diverse as possible. Since simple random sampling was used, each respondent within this population was chosen randomly, meaning that no form of bias for selecting respondents dominated the study, hence promoting the test’s validity and reliability of this study [24].
The sampling process began with obtaining a list of potential respondents from various industry-related platforms and networks, allowing for a diverse cross-section of participants. This approach was particularly important given the aim of capturing comprehensive insights into the impact of project constraints on social sustainability. The study targeted professionals across different roles, including project managers, site engineers, and consultants, to ensure that the varied experiences and challenges associated with project constraints were well represented.
The selected confidence level was 95% with a 50/50 split, necessitating the usage of the largest sample size to consider the variances in the response options. Dillman [25] concluded that a sample size of 96 is appropriate, with a 10% sampling error and a 95% confidence level. Therefore, a sample of 100 respondents employed in the current study is significantly reliable for further research. The minimum sample size of 96, adopted in the current study, is justified because many researchers have used a sample size above 96 in their studies [4,26,27]. The methodology of the current study is shown in Figure 1.

2.3. Data Analysis Methods

The data analysis process for this study employed a variety of quantitative techniques to investigate how project constraints influence social sustainability in the construction sector. Three methods were used to handle further data analyses: descriptive statistics, the Relative Importance Index (RII), and a multiple regression analysis. The summarization, ranking, and analysis of the interrelationships between variables were all performed by each of these approaches in a different way.

2.4. Descriptive Analysis

To summarize and describe the characteristics of the data that we collected, descriptive statistics were utilized. Descriptive statistics are summary measures that describe the main features of a dataset by providing simple quantitative insights, such as means, medians, standard deviations, and frequency distributions, to illustrate trends and variability within the data. The mean and standard deviation are the key units of measurement that were utilized for this study. These measures provided a summary of the responses that were obtained from every item in the questionnaire. The mean was used to determine the average response, which in turn indicates the consensus of the group about several limits and social sustainability factors pertaining to the project [28]. The standard deviation was a useful tool for estimating how responses vary, or how much they deviate from the average score of stakeholder perception. This was an essential component in understanding how respondents’ perceptions are consistent with one another. With the help of these four statistics, broad trends and conclusions within the data can be better understood. For example, which project limitations or social sustainability issues are most important to the people who participated in the survey?

2.5. Relative Importance Index (RII)

The RII method was utilized in this study to evaluate the nexus of project constraints and social sustainability factors as viewed by construction professionals in Pakistan. The RII method is understood in construction management and social sciences to measure the conflicting perceptions that may arise when prioritizing factors according to their perceived importance level. The factors adopted in the current study for project constraints and social sustainability were extracted from the studies of Irfan et al. (2019, 2024) [4,27].
This method was especially suitable for the study as it facilitated a systematic mathematical quantification of project constraints and social sustainability aspects, encompassing a wide range of perspectives from industry stakeholders. This study employed the RII to rank the factors influencing the social sustainability of construction projects. Responses on the factors were gathered from construction professionals using a Likert scale ranging from 1—not important to 5—extremely important. RII is a method in which individual ratings are aggregated and averaged to determine a relative importance score for various factors [29].
The average response to each factor was calculated, thereby determining the relative importance of each factor through a weighted average of all participants’ responses by using Equation (1). In the process of determining RII, weights are allocated to each rating, resulting in an RII value for each element of a factor that ranges from 0 to 1. This study indicates that a higher RII score signifies a greater perceived significance of the factor, whereas a lower RII score denotes a lesser perceived significance of the factor.
RII   =   Σ W A × N
where
  • W = rating given by each respondent;
  • A = highest weight in the scale (i.e., 5);
  • N = total number of respondents.
RII was utilized in the initial phase of this study to classify and rank the social sustainability factors and project constraints. This ranking provided a foundation for the subsequent analysis. The analysis that followed was based on the ranking of these factors. This approach is essential in emphasizing the key issues from a professional perspective, thereby underscoring the factors deemed critical in advancing social sustainability solutions within the construction industry.
The application of the RII facilitated the determination of each factor’s rank, and the results were utilized to inform the following analysis. In this context, the RII rankings enabled an analysis of the significant gaps concerning project constraints and sustainability, paving the way for further investigations aimed at formulating essential study recommendations based on the perceived impacts. Therefore, this approach proved effective in preparing the data for the regression analysis, as it facilitated the selection of the most significant variables for elucidating the degree of correlation in the context of project constraints and social sustainability. It also provided a practical and simple strategy for focusing on those aspects of construction projects that have the most potential to make Pakistani construction projects more sustainable.

2.6. Multiple Regression

Building on the insights gained from the RII technique, additional aspects associated with social sustainability were determined and prioritized. Additionally, a multiple regression analysis was employed to explain the impact of significant project constraints on social sustainability factors. Multiple regression is a valuable statistical method commonly employed in social science and construction management studies. This study utilized multiple regression to analyze the relationship between various project constraints and the social sustainability factors in the construction projects.
A multiple regression analysis is the method of determining the relationship between a dependent variable and two or more independent variables. This technique allows the researcher to determine the extent of the effects of all independent variables and to analyse their impact on the dependent variable uniformly, as well as to assess the direction of these effects [30]. By including multiple predictors, it becomes possible to establish the interaction effect of these variables and leave out the individual effect of each variable while controlling for other variables [31].
This method was adopted in the current study to examine how different project constraints of construction projects like cost, time, safety, etc., impact social sustainability in connection to the Pakistani construction industry. The dependent variable in this case was social sustainability whereas the independent variables comprised project constraints. By applying this method on the adopted factors, the understanding of which project constraints were statistically significant in influencing social sustainability and the degree of that impact were gained. To conduct this study, an analysis helped in pointing out which constraints should be of paramount consideration by industry professionals and policymakers to enhance social sustainability on construction projects.
The key benefit of using multiple regression in the present study is the ability to analyze the impact of several factors at the same time [31]. This means that the analysis could determine which of the project constraints are likely to have the greatest effect on social sustainability, with the presence of other constraints. For instance, if time limitation and resource scarcity were found to have an impact on the level of social sustainability, then the regression analysis would tell the degree of the impact and at the same time hold other factors such as budget constraints constant.
Additionally, the analysis of the regression model results provided a deeper understanding of the relationship between social sustainability and the strength of the links. This piece of information was very useful in determining the characteristics of construction projects in relation to sustainable social development. For example, using limited analytical results such as a negative correlation between time limitations and social sustainability, it can be hypothesized that increasing the efficiency of time-related measures may be conducive to improving sustainability in construction.
The results of this study, which were obtained through the application of a multiple regression analysis, can identify the most significant factors that predict social sustainability in the construction industry. Additionally, it enables the comprehension of the amount and direction of these linkages, which makes it feasible to determine which limitations tend to either boost or impede the results of sustainable practices. The criticality of these findings is in their ability to determine which constraints inside the project necessitate the attention of common stakeholders to achieve better performance using social sustainability practices.

3. Results and Discussion

The subsequent sections of the current study will comprehensively highlight the findings and discussion.

3.1. Demographics of Respondents

The demographics of respondents are given below in Figure 2. The responses were gathered from stakeholders who were affiliated with the construction industry and registered with the PEC. A total of 5 responses were collected from CEOs, 2 from Project Directors, 17 from project managers, 9 from Construction Managers, 7 from Assistant Managers, 19 from Project Engineers, 4 from Planning Engineers, 17 from Site Managers, 6 from Architects/Designers, and 14 from university-affiliated professionals. Similarly, among these respondents, 4 were Diploma Holders, 56 had BS degrees, 32 had MS degrees, and 8 had PhD degrees. Furthermore, these respondents were affiliated with different types of organizations, such as clients (31 respondents), consultants (43 respondents), and contractors (26 respondents). Consequently, the respondents were also asked about their understanding of project constraints and social sustainability in Pakistan’s construction industry. The findings were satisfactory because about 80% of respondents have a moderate to exceptional level of knowledge about this subject under study.
Moreover, as per Figure 2, these respondents have diverse experience in Pakistan’s construction industry and have been involved in diverse construction projects. The distribution of these respondents as per their years of experience includes the 61 respondents who have 0–5 years of experience, 32 who have 6–10, 2 who have 11–15, 3 who have 16–20, and 2 who have more than 20 years of experience.

3.2. Reliability and Validity

Checking the internal reliability of collected data, our Cronbach’s Alpha test value is 0.888, and it ranges between 0.70 and 0.95, which is acceptable for a further analysis [32].

3.3. Mean and Standard Deviation

This section will show the findings of the descriptive analysis. The respondents were asked to mark the effect of project constraints, as shown in Figure 3, on the construction projects on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 means no impact, and 5 means high impact. The response’s mean and standard deviation were plotted for all the project constraints. Among them, the highest means were noted for cost (3.98), followed by time (3.90) and inadequate planning (3.88), identifying the significance of these project constraints in the eyes of respondents. Similarly, the lowest mean is noted for poor site safety (3.49). The low mean is because organizations cannot implement mandatory standards in their projects, giving them the independence to adopt safety voluntarily.
Similarly, the respondents were asked to mark the influence of social sustainability factors, as shown in Figure 4, in the construction projects, on a 5-point Likert scale in which 1 means no effect and 5 means high impact. Most respondents improved their quality of life with the highest mean value of 3.73, the primary social sustainability factor that needs industry stakeholders’ attention. Similarly, the factor diversity with employees and community during construction projects had the lowest mean of 3.35. This is because of the unwanted political involvement of the stakeholders, which hinders the employment of diverse professionals involved in Pakistan’s construction projects.

3.4. Ranking of Factors

This section will discuss the RII for project constraints and social sustainability factors.

3.4.1. RII for Project Constraints

Table 1 presents a comprehensive assessment of various project constraints, prioritized according to their Relative Importance Index (RII), which measures the weight of each constraint and its potential impact on project success. Cost emerges as the top priority, indicating that it is the most significant constraint with the highest RII value of 0.796 and a weight of 79.6, suggesting that cost overruns are a critical risk factor in project management. The high impact and top rank with a percentage impact of 14.95% underscore its dominant influence on project outcomes, necessitating focused strategic intervention.
Following cost, time constraints hold the second highest priority with an RII of 0.78 and a weight of 78. This highlights the critical nature of timely project delivery, as delays can exacerbate costs and degrade project quality. Prioritization reflects the need for rigorous schedule management and effective timeline adherence to mitigate associated risks.
Inadequate planning and control also feature prominently with an RII of 0.776 and a weight of 77.6, emphasizing significant disruptions that can derail project objectives. This underscores the necessity for robust project management practices that enhance planning and control mechanisms, aligning project trajectories more closely with organizational goals.
Poor productivity due to unskilled workers is another significant concern with an RII of 0.766 and a weight of 76.6. It is categorized under moderate priority, highlighting the direct impact of workforce skill levels on project efficiency and output quality. Addressing this issue involves strategic human resource management and targeted training programs to bolster productivity.
Quality issues are identified with an RII of 0.76, underscoring potential long-term impacts on an organization’s reputation and operational success. The focus here is on implementing stringent quality assurance protocols and fostering a culture of continuous improvement to elevate the standard of project deliverables.
Inadequate resources, with an RII of 0.75 and a moderate impact level, suggest potential disruptions in project execution, pointing to the need for meticulous resource planning and management to prevent bottlenecks. Despite its lower priority, the allocation of resources remains a critical consideration in project planning.
Lastly, poor safety on sites, despite having the lowest RII of 0.698 and being classified as having minimal impact, is ranked with the lowest priority. This position may indicate either a well-managed safety protocol already in place or an underestimation of the impact of safety concerns. Nonetheless, ensuring safety is crucial for regulatory compliance and preventing workplace accidents, highlighting the need for continuous monitoring and improvements in safety measures. This structured prioritization aids managers in effectively allocating resources and formulating strategies to mitigate risks, especially focusing on the most impactful areas like cost and time, while still addressing other essential factors such as safety and quality.
Equation (1) was solved for cost because for the rest of the project constraints and social sustainability factors, similar methods were adopted to calculate the RII values.
Σ W   =   389
N   =   100
A   =   5
RII   =   398 5 × 100   =   0.796

3.4.2. RII for Social Sustainability Factors

Table 2 offers a detailed analysis of various social sustainability factors associated with construction projects, ranking them by their Relative Importance Index (RII), which helps in prioritizing them based on their significance and impact on community well-being.
At the top of the priority list is “Improving Quality of Living”, which carries the highest RII value of 0.746 and a weight of 74.6, signifying its substantial influence on the overall social sustainability of the community where construction projects occur. This factor is given a significant rating of high, and an impact level marked as significant, leading to its position as the top priority with a percentage impact of 21.03. The emphasis on improving the quality of living reflects a broader commitment to enhancing the living standards of the community through better housing, infrastructure, and local amenities, thereby directly affecting the daily lives of residents.
Following closely is the “Health and Safety of the Community”, with an RII of 0.734 and a weight of 73.4. It is ranked second, underscoring the critical nature of ensuring that construction projects do not adversely affect the health and safety of the community. With a high impact level and a significant category rating, it demonstrates the necessity of rigorous health and safety standards in construction practices to prevent accidents and health hazards, contributing a 20.69 percent impact.
“Social Security of Community” is the third-ranked factor with an RII of 0.712 and a weight of 71.2, categorized as high but with a moderate priority label. This indicates the importance of social stability and security within the community because of construction activities. It is essential to ensure that projects do not disrupt the social fabric; however, this concern is perceived as somewhat less urgent than direct improvements in quality of living and health and safety measures.
The factor “Equity” presents an interesting discussion point with an RII of 0.686 and a low impact and priority ranking. It reflects the perceived minimal direct impact of construction projects on broader social equity issues such as equal access to resources and opportunities. However, the relatively high weight indicates that while it may not be urgent, it is still significant enough to merit attention, particularly in terms of ensuring fair treatment and opportunities for all community members.
Lastly, “Diversity with Employees and Community During Construction Projects” ranks lowest with an RII of 0.67 and a priority level marked as minimal. This suggests a lower direct impact of diversity initiatives on the immediate success of construction projects in terms of social sustainability. However, fostering diversity is crucial for longer-term community engagement and social cohesion, indicating that while it may not be an immediate priority, it remains an important aspect of overall social sustainability strategies in construction.
Overall, this prioritization framework helps stakeholders identify and focus on the social sustainability factors that will have the most immediate and significant impact on the community, ensuring that construction projects contribute positively to societal well-being while addressing more strategic long-term goals like equity and diversity as part of broader organizational commitments.

3.5. Regression Analysis

The multiple regression analysis presented in Table 3 reveals several insights into the impact of project constraints on social sustainability from the clients’ perspective. The results show that cost constraints significantly positively affect social sustainability (β = 0.390, p = 0.027), indicating that increased project costs are associated with lower social sustainability outcomes. Conversely, time constraints have a negligible and statistically insignificant negative effect (β = −0.038, p = 0.835), suggesting no meaningful impact on social sustainability. Similarly, poor quality (β = −0.105, p = 0.458), inadequate planning and control (β = −0.089, p = 0.660), inadequate resources (β = −0.101, p = 0.694), and poor safety on sites (β = 0.185, p = 0.383) do not significantly affect social sustainability. However, poor productivity due to an unskilled workforce shows a marginally significant positive impact (β = 0.312, p = 0.073), indicating a potential area of concern. The model explains 48.3% of the variance in social sustainability (R2 = 0.483), and the overall model is statistically significant (F-ratio = 3.069, p < 0.05). These findings highlight that cost plays a critical role in enhancing social sustainability among various project constraints, with poor productivity due to unskilled workers being another area with near-significant influence.
Moreover, the findings of Table 3 also highlight that the only project constraint with a statistically significant impact is poor productivity due to an unskilled workforce (β = 0.623, p = 0.003), indicating that increased poor productivity is significantly associated with reduced social sustainability outcomes. Other constraints, such as cost (β = −0.079, p = 0.671), time (β = 0.127, p = 0.476), poor quality (β = −0.372, p = 0.085), inadequate planning and control (β = 0.150, p = 0.409), insufficient resources (β = −0.029, p = 0.890), and poor safety on sites (β = 0.100, p = 0.519), show no statistically significant impact on social sustainability.
The model’s R2 value is 0.442, indicating that the included project constraints can explain approximately 44.2% of the variance in social sustainability. The overall model is statistically significant, as noted in the F-ratio of 3.967 (p < 0.05). This suggests that while several constraints were considered, only poor productivity due to an unskilled workforce has a meaningful and statistically significant effect on social sustainability from the consultants’ perspective. Other constraints do not show substantial impacts individually, even though the model is essential.
Furthermore, it is revealed from Table 3 that none of the project constraints show a statistically significant impact on social sustainability individually. The cost constraint (β = 0.517, p = 0.116) has a positive but not statistically significant effect, suggesting that higher costs may have a positive influence, but the evidence is not strong enough to be conclusive. Time constraints (β = −0.230, p = 0.432), poor quality (β = −0.289, p = 0.198), inadequate planning and control (β = 0.332, p = 0.356), insufficient resources (β = 0.175, p = 0.578), poor safety on sites (β = 0.180, p = 0.337), and poor productivity due to an unskilled workforce (β = 0.131, p = 0.565) all exhibit non-significant impacts on social sustainability.
The model explains 58.7% of the variance in social sustainability (R2 = 0.587), indicating a moderate to strong explanatory power. The overall model is statistically significant, as demonstrated by the F-ratio of 3.660 (p < 0.05). This suggests that while the included project constraints collectively influence social sustainability, no single constraint shows a significant effect from the contractors’ perspective when considered individually. This implies that the relationship between project constraints and social sustainability may be more complex and influenced by the combined effect of multiple factors rather than any single constraint.
Overall, the above results suggest that the comparative analysis of project constraints on social sustainability from the perspectives of clients, consultants, and contractors reveals differing impacts. From the clients’ perspective, cost (slope = 0.390, p = 0.027) is a significant positive factor, while other constraints do not show substantial impacts. For consultants, poor productivity due to an unskilled workforce (slope = 0.623, p = 0.003) is a significant positive factor, whereas other constraints are insignificant. Contractors do not find any constraints significantly impactful, though there are positive trends for the cost (slope = 0.517, p = 0.116), inadequate planning and control (slope = 0.332, p = 0.356), poor safety on sites (slope = 0.180, p = 0.337), and poor productivity due to an unskilled workforce (slope = 0.131, p = 0.565). The model fits, indicated by R2 values, show that the identified constraints explain a moderate to substantial portion of the variance in social sustainability for each perspective (clients: R2 = 0.483, consultants: R2 = 0.442, contractors: R2 = 0.587).

3.6. Discussion

The findings of the current study concerning project constraints in Pakistan’s construction industry can be readily aligned with those of other emerging countries. Research from nations such as Nigeria and the UAE indicates that the significant burden of high costs (RII = 0.796) is evidenced by substantial project-related cost overruns, attributed to volatile material price fluctuations and financial mismanagement, which exacerbate this constraint as one of the most significant constraints [33,34]. Time constraints (RII = 0.780) are prevalent in underdeveloped countries. Research conducted in Saudi Arabia and Malaysia has reached a comparable conclusion on the prevalent issues, namely project delays and inadequate planning/decision making, which corroborates the current study’s findings [35,36]. This pertains to case studies in Ghana and Ethiopia [37,38], where inadequate project management and a lack of coordination among stakeholders have been identified as significant difficulties with RII = 0.776.
However, the current analysis indicated a poor safety ranking on construction sites (RII = 0.698), suggesting that the two factors are weak determinants affecting the prioritization of safety enforcement. This contrasts with certain literature, particularly in more advanced circumstances when safety is of utmost importance [39,40]. Safety practices rank among the least favored elements in the construction industry, especially in developing nations where regulatory enforcement is sometimes inadequate and economic constraints are significant—potentially contributing to their neglect in the Pakistani building sector. These findings underscore the imperative for enhanced planning, cost management, and security protocols within this sector.
Furthermore, the findings from Table 1 highlight that improving the quality of living is more important than other social sustainability factors, and its RII value is 0.746. RII values for other social sustainability factors include health and safety of the community (0.734), social security of the community (0.712), equity (0.686), and diversity with employees and community during construction projects (0.670). As indicated earlier, Pakistan is a developing country with a significant population below the poverty line; thus, the need to improve the quality of life is more important and ranked at the top by the respondents compared to other social sustainability factors. The findings of the current study related to quality of life, which ranks higher than other social sustainability indicators, align with international trends. Research in both South Africa and India indicates that enhancing individuals’ quality of life is essential for sustainability, a sentiment widely endorsed by many individuals [41,42]. The enhancement of quality of life is a primary objective in sustainable construction.
The study’s findings also highlighted that it is essential to recognize project constraints’ influence on social sustainability in Pakistan’s construction sector. The social dimensions of sustainability, such as worker welfare, community engagement, and general societal well-being, are frequently significantly impacted, either directly or indirectly, by project constraints such as budgetary constraints, schedule constraints, and quality standards. This aspect was also investigated by Ebbesen and Hope [43], and the current study’s findings were validated. Thus, it is crucial to comprehend social sustainability in Pakistan. The country’s social development is significantly impacted by poverty, gender inequality, illiteracy, and poor healthcare [44]. Moreover, prioritizing a comprehensive approach to resolving these issues is crucial for construction projects that aim to increase social sustainability, as investigated by Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar [45] and validated by the current study’s findings.
Additionally, budget and time constraints may compromise ethical labor standards and worker safety, which could put construction workers in abusive working situations. The primary results of the current study support this argument because time and cost are the most influential factors. These findings are also supported by Irfan et al. [4], whose models regarding time and cost-related constraints have a positive influence. Thus, as a consequence, limited funding and conflicting agendas might make it difficult for projects to successfully address social issues [46]. This may result in underfunding vital industries like construction and the struggle against poverty, which would impede the advancement of social sustainability. As a result, services essential for societal development, such as healthcare facilities, educational initiatives, and infrastructure development, may be jeopardized by insufficient funding investigated. The primary findings of the current study also reported this aspect with a positive influence. Therefore, novel finance approaches and effective stakeholder participation are essential to address this constraint.
Moreover, due to the pressure of meeting deadlines, employees may experience elevated stress levels and reduced job satisfaction because of time limitations. Project timelines can influence social sustainability by shortening the time to implement long-term ideas [47]. Anxiety can cause people to adopt temporary solutions that do not sufficiently address underlying social problems. Complex planning and evaluation processes are needed to allocate time for social sustainability projects as efficiently as possible. Furthermore, inadequate funding or schedule constraints may result in inferior infrastructure, worsening the lives of the nearby communities that depend on these projects for everyday necessities [43].
Consequently, the findings from the regression analysis revealed that the clients and consultants show more significant positive impacts on social sustainability, with clients primarily influenced by cost and consultants by productivity. Although showing positive trends, contractors do not have any constraints with significant implications due to the lack of regulations and awareness regarding social sustainability in Pakistan. Therefore, it can be concluded that clients and consultants have a more substantial positive impact on social sustainability than contractors. Additionally, the project managers in Pakistan’s construction industry must identify and mitigate these possible adverse effects by implementing practical plans that give social sustainability equal weight to commercial concerns. Therefore, the detrimental effects of project constraints on social sustainability must be addressed, which requires effective stakeholder participation. To assess needs, allocate resources, and implement sustainable solutions, collaboration among governments, civil society organisations, local communities, and international partners is essential. Current outcomes align with the findings of Van Huijstee et al. [48], who emphasised that engaging diverse stakeholders ensures a comprehensive and inclusive approach to social development. If neglected, project constraints might impede social sustainability by limiting chances for capacity building and knowledge transfer [49].

3.7. Development of Conceptual Framework

The ability of a society to satisfy the requirements of the current generation without jeopardizing the welfare of future generations is referred to as social sustainability. Pakistan is a developing nation with several constraints in its path to social sustainability implementation in the construction industry. The present study examines how the project’s constraints affect social sustainability in Pakistan, including challenges encountered and possible solutions. The past studies analyzed this aspect separately, leaving a significant research gap [47]; therefore, the current study integrated these concepts and measured the influence of project constraints on social sustainability factors in Pakistan’s construction industry.
The framework illustrated in Figure 5 adheres to established international standards, including EN 15643:2021, ISO 21930, and ISO 15392 [50,51,52]. EN 15643:2021 presents a systematic framework for assessing sustainability in construction, with a strong emphasis on social sustainability. This study highlights aspects such as quality of life, health, and social security in Pakistan. This reference standard facilitates a systematic examination of the impact of constraints on social sustainability performance indicators, drawing from global best practices. Furthermore, ISO 21930 reinforces the points by outlining principles and obligations concerning the environmental, social, and economic impacts of construction works. This framework enables the assessment of project restrictions within a comprehensive sustainable development model. Based on the study’s framework aligned with ISO 21930, it can be suggested that factors such as resource management, stakeholder engagement, and capacity-building measures should be utilized to tackle constraints.
This strategy cultivates independence and the capacity to overcome obstacles in the future, as investigated by Meinke et al. [49], and supports the critical findings of the current study by stressing the significance of improving quality of life with a maximum RII score of 0.746. Thus, considering the current study’s results, saying that project constraints significantly influence Pakistan’s social sustainability is of considerable weightage. Therefore, adopting a multifaceted strategy that emphasizes efficient resource allocation, stakeholder participation, quality prioritization, utilizing technology, and funding capacity-building projects is essential to overcoming these obstacles [46]. Pakistan may achieve significant strides in social sustainability, enhance the welfare of its populace, and provide a brighter future for future generations by putting these strategies into practice.
Furthermore, ISO 15392 regarding sustainable building, by incorporating overarching principles of sustainability, reinforces the idea that resource utilization should be limited. Quality management should aim for a harmonious mix of opportunities and challenges, which shapes the framework’s emphasis on addressing constraints through quality assurance and stakeholder engagement. The subsequent elements are examined in Figure 5: project constraints such as financial constraints, time constraints, ineffective management, and the production of substandard work due to unskilled labor directly impact social sustainability. These are factors that constrain sustainable development; however, as the framework illustrated above demonstrates, an increased emphasis on social sustainability can provide a transformative impact within this industry. Ultimately, the framework demonstrates that while project constraints pose challenges, adherence to standards such as EN 15643, ISO 21930, and ISO 15392 will enhance the socially sustainable construction industry. The construction industry in Pakistan has significant potential to enhance quality of life and achieve sustainable development goals, provided that existing constraints are addressed, and sustainable construction principles are embraced.
The visual framework in Figure 5 demonstrates the interplay between project limitations and social sustainability considerations in Pakistan’s construction industry. One aspect of the framework emphasizes essential limitations of the project, including financial constraints, time constraints, insufficient planning and management, and low productivity caused by unskilled labor. These constraints directly affect elements related to social sustainability, such as enhancing the community’s quality of life, ensuring the community’s health and safety, and providing social security for the community. The framework illustrates that project constraints harm social sustainability, impeding the progress of sustainable development. On the other hand, when social sustainability considerations have a more significant impact, they benefit sustainable development. The framework demonstrates a double influence: the growing focus on social sustainability boosts the overall achievement of sustainable development, while the moderating effect of project constraints lessens impediments to attaining sustainability. To create a construction industry that is socially sustainable and focused on growth, it is imperative to focus on the importance of project constraints’ impact on social sustainability.

4. Conclusions

The current study aimed to assess the influence of project constraints on social sustainability factors in Pakistan’s construction industry. The findings of the study indicate that among project constraints, cost (mean = 3.98) has the highest mean value, followed by time (mean = 3.90), while poor safety on sites (mean = 3.49) has the lowest mean. This low mean score can be attributed to the lack of mandatory safety standards, allowing organizations to implement safety measures at their discretion. For social sustainability factors, improving the quality of life (mean = 3.73) emerged as the most critical factor needing industry stakeholders’ attention, while the diversity of the community and workforce (mean = 3.35) received the lowest means. The low mean in diversity is due to the stakeholders’ resistance to political participation, making it challenging to hire experts for Pakistani construction projects.
Furthermore, the RII results reveal that cost (RII = 0.796) is the most significant project constraint, followed by time (RII = 0.780) and inadequate planning and control (RII = 0.776). Poor site safety (RII = 0.698) has the lowest RII value. The low RII values for certain constraints reflect the traditional construction practices that are still prevalent in Pakistan. Improving the quality of living (RII = 0.746) is prioritized on the front of social sustainability, highlighting the need for enhanced living standards in a country where many live in underprivileged conditions.
The multiple regression analysis further substantiates these findings. For clients, cost (slope = 0.390, p = 0.027) and poor productivity due to an unskilled workforce (slope = 0.312, p = 0.073) significantly impact social sustainability. From the consultants’ perspective, poor productivity due to an unskilled workforce (slope = 0.623, p = 0.003) is notably significant. However, contractors did not show any significant impact from the constraints, although cost (slope = 0.517, p = 0.116) and inadequate planning and control (slope = 0.332, p = 0.356) showed positive trends.
These results suggest that contractors might use low-wage workers or neglect safety measures when funding is constrained, undermining fair employment standards and worker welfare. Strict deadlines can lead to excessive overtime and unfavorable working conditions, negatively affecting employees’ physical and mental health. The study also indicates that adherence to laws on community involvement and environmental preservation influences social sustainability outcomes. Failure to meet these responsibilities erodes trust among local communities and damages the industry’s reputation for social well-being. Construction businesses must recognize the implications of project constraints on social sustainability to promote ethical standards and protect the long-term well-being of their employees and surrounding communities.

4.1. Theoretical and Practical Implications

The study’s findings are important for academia and industry stakeholders in Pakistan’s construction industry, emphasizing the influence of project constraints on social sustainability. Project constraints play a significant role in determining a project’s social sustainability, with financial, scheduling, and resource constraints posing obstacles. These limitations directly affect stakeholders, the community, labor conditions, and social sustainability, impacting worker welfare and community discussions. Decision makers in the building sector must understand how constraints interact with social sustainability to prioritize societal welfare and economic realities. Long-term social sustainability in construction projects requires the proactive consideration and mitigation of these obstacles.

4.2. Study Limitations

The primary limitation of this research is its reliance on a particular developing country, Pakistan, which may render the conclusions gained from this study inapplicable to other nations with varying socioeconomic, cultural, and governance situations. Nonetheless, economic instabilities, the characteristics of the labor force, and the extent of safety and quality standards in other emerging or industrialized nations may lead to discrepancies in the outcomes. Another limitation pertains to the data-collecting methodology, wherein data are statistically gathered using structured questionnaires from a chosen sample of registered civil engineers. This approach, while beneficial for assessing objective statistical measures, may entirely neglect the perspectives of other pertinent stakeholders, such as laborers, residents, or policymakers, whose insights could enhance the awareness of specific social sustainability challenges. The collected data are self-reported, which increases the likelihood of response bias, since individuals may present information that is excessively optimistic or pessimistic based on their personal experiences or expectations. Future research could employ quantitative interviews and case studies including a wider group of individuals from multiple countries to enhance the findings across various contexts.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.S., A.A. and K.F.; Methodology, M.S., A.A., M.I., W.S.A. and M.A.M.; Software, M.S. and K.F.; Formal analysis, M.S. and A.A.; Investigation, K.F.; Resources, M.I.; Data curation, M.S. and A.A.; Writing—original draft, M.S., A.A. and K.F.; Writing—review & editing, M.I., W.S.A. and M.A.M.; Visualization, M.I., W.S.A. and M.A.M.; Supervision, M.I., W.S.A. and M.A.M.; Project administration, W.S.A.; Funding acquisition, W.S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS (UTP) for the support from the (cost centre 015PBC-004) awarded to Wesam Salah Alaloul.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Purvis, B.; Mao, Y.; Robinson, D. Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins. Sustain. Sci. 2019, 14, 681–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Amrutha, V.; Geetha, S.J. A systematic review on green human resource management: Implications for social sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nagy, J.; Oláh, J.; Erdei, E.; Máté, D.; Popp, J. The role and impact of Industry 4.0 and the internet of things on the business strategy of the value chain—The case of Hungary. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Irfan, M.; Thaheem, M.J.; Gabriel, H.F.; Malik, M.S.A.; Nasir, A.R. Effect of stakeholder’s conflicts on project constraints: A tale of the construction industry. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 2019, 30, 538–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Asrar-ul-Haq, M.; Kuchinke, K.P.; Iqbal, A.J.J.o.C.P. The relationship between corporate social responsibility, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment: Case of Pakistani higher education. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 2352–2363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Asees, A.M.; Ali, Y. Sustainable modeling in reverse logistics strategies using fuzzy MCDM: Case of China Pakistan Economic Corridor. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2019, 30, 1132–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wang, H.; Zhang, X.; Lu, W. Improving social sustainability in construction: Conceptual framework based on social network analysis. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 05018012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yıldız, S.; Kıvrak, S.; Gültekin, A.B.; Arslan, G. Built environment design-social sustainability relation in urban renewal. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 60, 102173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ershadi, M.; Goodarzi, F. Core capabilities for achieving sustainable construction project management. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 28, 1396–1410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mustafa, J.; Almehmadi, F.A.; Alqaed, S.; Sharifpur, M. Building a sustainable energy community: Design and integrate variable renewable energy systems for rural communities. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Govindaras, B.; Wern, T.S.; Kaur, S.; Haslin, I.A.; Ramasamy, R.K. Sustainable Environment to Prevent Burnout and Attrition in Project Management. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Janssen, C.; Basta, C. Are good intentions enough? Evaluating social sustainability in urban development projects through the capability approach. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2024, 32, 368–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Boonnual, C.; Boonnual, T. Social Capital and Corporate Social Responsibility: Pathways to the Sustainability of Community Enterprises in Chumphon Province. Int. J. Prof. Bus. Rev. 2024, 9, e04174. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hussain, F.; Hussain, M. China-Pak economic corridor (CPEC) and its geopolitical paradigms. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Educ. 2017, 1, 79–95. [Google Scholar]
  15. Assaad, R.; El-Adaway, I.H. Enhancing the knowledge of construction business failure: A social network analysis approach. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020, 146, 04020052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. O’Faircheallaigh, C. Shaping projects, shaping impacts: Community-controlled impact assessments and negotiated agreements. In New Mechanisms of Participation in Extractive Governance; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 139–155. [Google Scholar]
  17. Frimpong, B.E.; Sunindijo, R.Y.; Wang, C. Towards improving performance of the construction industry in Ghana: A SWOT approach. Civ. Eng. Dimens. 2020, 22, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Strydom, W.; Puren, K.; Drewes, E.J.S. Defining Sustainable Placemaking in Spatial Planning: Lessons from a South African Case Study. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ikram, M.; Ferasso, M.; Sroufe, R.; Zhang, Q. Assessing green technology indicators for cleaner production and sustainable investments in a developing country context. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 322, 129090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Anwar, S.U.; Wuyi, Z.; Ali Shah, S.Z.; Ullah, Q.; Amir, S.M.; Syed, A. The resilient economic impact of CPEC and future of MNCs: Evidence from Pakistan. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hussain, K.; He, Z.; Ahmad, N.; Iqbal, M.; Saeed, M.Z. Establishing a Green, Lean and Six Sigma implementation model for sustainable construction industry: An analysis of driving forces through ISM-MICMAC approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 30, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ullah, M.; Khan, M.W.A.; Hussain, A.; Rana, F.; Khan, A. A construct validation approach for exploring sustainability adoption in Pakistani construction projects. Buildings 2020, 10, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Calfee, R.C.; Chambliss, M.J. Research designs for empirical research. In Handbook of Research On teaching the English Language Arts; Routledge: London, UK, 2011; pp. 398–411. [Google Scholar]
  24. Emerson, R.W. Convenience sampling, random sampling, and snowball sampling: How does sampling affect the validity of research? J. Vis. Impair. Blind. 2015, 109, 164–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dillman, D.A. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method--2007 Update with New Internet, Visual, and Mixed-Mode Guide; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ahmad, T.; Aibinu, A.A.; Stephan, A.; Chan, A.P. Investigating associations among performance criteria in Green Building projects. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 232, 1348–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Irfan, M.; Alaloul, W.S.; Ghufran, M.; Yaseen, G.; Thaheem, M.J.; Qureshi, A.H.; Bilal, M. Analyzing the impact of organizational culture on social sustainability: A perspective of the construction industry. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2024, 26, 1103–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Carrasco, J.; García, S.; Rueda, M.; Das, S.; Herrera, F. Recent trends in the use of statistical tests for comparing swarm and evolutionary computing algorithms: Practical guidelines and a critical review. Swarm Evol. Comput. 2020, 54, 100665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ayarkwa, J.; Opoku, D.-G.J.; Antwi-Afari, P.; Li, R.Y.M. Sustainable building processes’ challenges and strategies: The relative important index approach. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2022, 7, 100455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ezeokpube, G.C.; Ahaneku, I.E.; Alaneme, G.U.; Attah, I.C.; Etim, R.K.; Olaiya, B.C.; Udousoro, I.M. Assessment of Mechanical Properties of Soil-Lime-Crude Oil-Contaminated Soil Blend Using Regression Model for Sustainable Pavement Foundation Construction. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2022, 2022, 7207842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Arkes, J. Regression Analysis: A Practical Introduction; Routledge: London, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  32. Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2011, 2, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Alhammadi, A.S.A.M.; Memon, A.H. Inhibiting factors of cost performance in uae construction projects. Int. J. Sustain. Constr. Eng. Technol. 2020, 11, 126–132. [Google Scholar]
  34. Dorcas, O.-A.B.; Oluwakayode, O.J. Critical factors responsible for time overruns in Nigeria building construction industry. Int. J. Mech. Civ. Eng. 2020, 4, 22–33. [Google Scholar]
  35. Yap, J.B.H.; Goay, P.L.; Woon, Y.B.; Skitmore, M. Revisiting critical delay factors for construction: Analysing projects in Malaysia. Alex. Eng. J. 2021, 60, 1717–1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Alshihri, S.; Al-Gahtani, K.; Almohsen, A. Risk factors that lead to time and cost overruns of building projects in Saudi Arabia. Buildings 2022, 12, 902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mengistu, D.G.; Mahesh, G. Challenges in developing the Ethiopian construction industry. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev. 2020, 12, 373–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Agyekum, A.K.; Fugar, F.D.K.; Agyekum, K.; Akomea-Frimpong, I.; Pittri, H. Barriers to stakeholder engagement in sustainable procurement of public works. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2023, 30, 3840–3857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sanni-Anibire, M.O.; Mahmoud, A.S.; Hassanain, M.A.; Salami, B.A. A risk assessment approach for enhancing construction safety performance. Saf. Sci. 2020, 121, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Trillo-Cabello, A.F.; Carrillo-Castrillo, J.A.; Rubio-Romero, J.C. Perception of risk in construction. Exploring the factors that influence experts in occupational health and safety. Saf. Sci. 2021, 133, 104990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chandi, I.; Kahilu, K.; Akintayo, O. An investigation into health and safety factors in the South African construction industry. In Proceedings of the Proceedings: 12th Built Environment conference, Durban, South Africa, 6–7 August 2018; pp. 62–75. [Google Scholar]
  42. Singh, A.; Misra, S.C. Safety performance & evaluation framework in Indian construction industry. Saf. Sci. 2021, 134, 105023. [Google Scholar]
  43. Ebbesen, J.B.; Hope, A. Re-imagining the iron triangle: Embedding sustainability into project constraints. PM World J. 2013, 2. Available online: https://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/11311/ (accessed on 23 October 2024).
  44. Ruger, J.P.; Kim, H.-J. Global health inequalities: An international comparison. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2006, 60, 928–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Alshuwaikhat, H.M.; Abubakar, I. An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: Assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1777–1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wang, H.; Tong, L.; Takeuchi, R.; George, G. Corporate social responsibility: An overview and new research directions: Thematic issue on corporate social responsibility. Acad. Manag. J. 2016, 59, 534–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Valdes-Vasquez, R.; Klotz, L.E. Social sustainability considerations during planning and design: Framework of processes for construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 80–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Van Huijstee, M.M.; Francken, M.; Leroy, P. Partnerships for sustainable development: A review of current literature. Environ. Sci. 2007, 4, 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Meinke, H.; Nelson, R.; Kokic, P.; Stone, R.; Selvaraju, R.; Baethgen, W. Actionable climate knowledge: From analysis to synthesis. Clim. Res. 2006, 33, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. EN 15643:2021; Sustainability of Construction Works—Framework for Assessment of Buildings and Civil Engineering Works. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
  51. ISO 21930; Sustainability in Buildings and Civil Engineering Works—Core Rules for Environmental Product Declarations of Construction Products and Services. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  52. ISO 15392; Sustainability in Buildings and Civil Engineering Works—General Principles. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
Sustainability 16 09875 g001
Figure 1. Methodology flowchart.
Figure 1. Methodology flowchart.
Sustainability 16 09875 g001
Sustainability 16 09875 g002
Figure 2. Respondents’ job title, qualification, organizational type, and job title distribution.
Figure 2. Respondents’ job title, qualification, organizational type, and job title distribution.
Sustainability 16 09875 g002
Sustainability 16 09875 g003
Figure 3. Mean and SD for social sustainability factors.
Figure 3. Mean and SD for social sustainability factors.
Sustainability 16 09875 g003
Sustainability 16 09875 g004
Figure 4. Mean and SD for project constraints.
Figure 4. Mean and SD for project constraints.
Sustainability 16 09875 g004
Sustainability 16 09875 g005
Figure 5. Conceptual framework.
Figure 5. Conceptual framework.
Sustainability 16 09875 g005
Table 1. RII for Project Constraints.
Table 1. RII for Project Constraints.
Project ConstraintRII ValueWeightCategoryImpact LevelRankNormalized RIIPercentage ImpactRelative ContributionPriority Level
Cost0.79679.6HighSignificant1114.9514.95Top Priority
Time0.7878HighSignificant20.8414.6514.65High Priority
Inadequate Planning and Control0.77677.6HighSignificant30.8014.5714.57High Priority
Poor Productivity due to Unskilled Workers0.76676.6HighSignificant40.6914.3814.38Moderate Priority
Poor Quality0.7676HighSignificant50.6314.2714.27Moderate Priority
Inadequate Resources0.7575ModerateModerate60.5314.0814.08Low Priority
Poor Safety on Sites0.69869.8LowMinimal7013.1113.11Lowest Priority
Table 2. RII for Social Sustainability Factors.
Table 2. RII for Social Sustainability Factors.
Social Sustainability FactorRII ValueWeightCategoryImpact LevelRankNormalized RIIPercentage ImpactRelative ContributionPriority Level
Improving Quality of Living0.74674.6HighSignificant1121.0321.03Top Priority
Health and Safety of the Community0.73473.4HighSignificant20.8420.6920.69High Priority
Social Security of Community0.71271.2HighSignificant30.5520.0720.07Moderate Priority
Equity0.68668.6LowMinimal40.2119.3319.33Low Priority
Diversity with Employees and Community During Construction Projects0.6767LowMinimal5018.8818.88Lowest Priority
Table 3. Impact of project constraints on social sustainability from stakeholder’s perspective.
Table 3. Impact of project constraints on social sustainability from stakeholder’s perspective.
Independent VariablesClientConsultantContractor
SlopeStd. Errort-RatioSigSlopeStd. Errort-RatioSigSlopeStd. Errort-RatioSig
Cost0.390.1652.3590.027−0.0790.185−0.4280.6710.5170.3131.650.116
Time−0.0380.179−0.2110.8350.1270.1770.7210.476−0.230.286−0.8040.432
Poor quality−0.1050.139−0.7550.458−0.3720.209−1.7750.085−0.2890.216−1.3370.198
Inadequate planning and control−0.0890.198−0.4460.660.150.1790.8350.4090.3320.3510.9480.356
Inadequate resources−0.1010.253−0.3980.694−0.0290.211−0.1390.890.1750.3090.5660.578
Poor safety on sites0.1850.2080.8890.3830.10.1540.6510.5190.180.1820.9860.337
Poor productivity due to unskilled workforce0.3120.1661.8790.0730.6230.1983.1480.0030.1310.2230.5860.565
Constant1.3181.6880.436
R20.4830.4420.587
F-ratio3.069p < 0.053.967p < 0.053.66p < 0.05
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shahzaib, M.; Aziz, A.; Fayyaz, K.; Irfan, M.; Salah Alaloul, W.; Musarat, M.A. Analyzing the Nexus Between Project Constraints and Social Sustainability in Construction: A Case for a Developing Economy. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9875. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229875

AMA Style

Shahzaib M, Aziz A, Fayyaz K, Irfan M, Salah Alaloul W, Musarat MA. Analyzing the Nexus Between Project Constraints and Social Sustainability in Construction: A Case for a Developing Economy. Sustainability. 2024; 16(22):9875. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229875

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shahzaib, Muhammad, Arslan Aziz, Kashan Fayyaz, Muhammad Irfan, Wesam Salah Alaloul, and Muhammad Ali Musarat. 2024. "Analyzing the Nexus Between Project Constraints and Social Sustainability in Construction: A Case for a Developing Economy" Sustainability 16, no. 22: 9875. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229875

APA Style

Shahzaib, M., Aziz, A., Fayyaz, K., Irfan, M., Salah Alaloul, W., & Musarat, M. A. (2024). Analyzing the Nexus Between Project Constraints and Social Sustainability in Construction: A Case for a Developing Economy. Sustainability, 16(22), 9875. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229875

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop