## 6 Discussions and Conclusions  
_What are the most severe risks in commercial and recreational complex building projects (CRCBPs)?_ This is the question at the center of the presented study, and results of the quantitative step (see Table 7) showed that the 10 most important CRFs of CRCBPs are (i) threats from international relations, (ii) exchange rate fluctuations and changes, (iii) bank interest rate fluctuations, (iv) traffic licenses, (v) access to skilled labor, (vi) changes in regional regulations, (vii) the condition of adjacent buildings, (viii) fluctuations and changes in inflation rates, (ix) failure to select a suitable and qualified advisor, and (x) previous experiences and records related to the employer. The results of the current study are partly aligned with those of some previous scholars interested in identifying and ranking CRFs in construction projects, even if not specifically considering CRCBPs. For example, [10] reported that construction project risk indicators are mainly related to changes in domestic and international situations and the efficiency of a country's economics/workforce/construction characteristics/consulative and contractual services. Yet, Hatefi and Mohseni [73] also ranked the CRFs as high in relation to initial price fluctuations, rising inflation, exchange rate fluctuations, bank interest rate fluctuations, tax increases, and the uncertainty of fiscal policies. Results are slightly in contrast to Dey [74] who, by evaluating project risks using a MCDM method, identified that also risks connected with government bonds and equipment suppliers and technology selection have a high priority in construction projects (not ranked high in the proposed study). With regard to CRCBPs, the produced results extend the contributions by Chen and Khumpaisal [35] and by Tamosaitiene et al. [12], who identified risks for CRCBPs without, however, providing their prioritization. Yet, when considering prior studies that identified and prioritized CRFs of CRCBPs, results of the proposed work are partly in accord; indeed, with regard to Comu et al. [17], this is despite 'exchange rate and inflation rate fluctuations' and 'political instability' not being included with other CRFs ranked as important in the proposed work (e.g., traffic licenses, access to skilled labor, changes in regional regulations, etc.). Differences in these findings can come from the different economic, social, and cultural contexts, as well as from the different features of the samples involved. Indeed, respondents for the proposed contribution are more experienced, they come from distinct stakeholders' categories (clients and consultants have been included), and they are more heterogeneous in terms of field of specialty. These individual differences, according to the literature [77], can lead to different perceptions and, as a consequence, to distinct prioritization of categories. Yet, project risks can also vary from time to time depending on the progress level of the project [78], and this is more important for financial risks, such as the exchange rate instabilities, which can occur suddenly due to unforeseen factors [79], most of which are often external ones. If looking at risks identified and prioritized for megaprojects that have some parallelism with CRCBPs [80], results are slightly in contrast. Indeed, Cheng and Darsa [27] found that the most important risk factors in the Ethiopian context are 'change order', 'corruption/bribery', and 'delay in payment', while Chattapadhyay et al. [29] found that the most severe risks are delay in obtaining traffic regulation orders, inappropriate equipment, political and legal issues, political instability, government intervention, regulatory confirmation and regulation order delays, and wrong engineering designs. Obviously, these differences can be associated to the usual distinct nature of megaprojects and CRCBPS, mainly public and private, respectively [81]. Among the ten identified risks, some were external risks of CRCBPs while others were internal risks.