## 3 Methodology
### The Results of the Survey
By ranking risks in descending order of importance, the proposed framework enables stakeholders to focus resources on higher-priority risks while retaining a comprehensive understanding of lower-tier risks that may influence specific phases or contexts. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline
**Risk** & **Risk Impact** & **Cumulative** & **Cumulative** \\
**R34—Environmental Compliance Risks** & 14.43 & 444.20 & 56.78\% \\
**R46—Limited Access to Advanced Technologies** & 14.43 & 458.63 & 58.63\% \\
**R47—Maintenance Challenges** & 14.06 & 472.69 & 60.42\% \\
**R17—Equipment Quality and Maintenance Issues** & 14.06 & 486.75 & 62.22\% \\
**R50—Risks from Energy-Intensive Processes** & 14.00 & 500.75 & 64.01\% \\
**R52—Political Factors** & 13.69 & 514.44 & 65.76\% \\
**R32—Technological Integration Issues** & 13.65 & 528.09 & 67.50\% \\
**R21—Regulatory Compliance Delays** & 13.20 & 541.29 & 69.19\% \\
**R33—Project Scope Creep** & 12.95 & 554.24 & 70.85\% \\
**R39—Risk of Current Technologies Becoming Outdated** & 12.95 & 567.19 & 72.50\% \\
**R51—Regulatory Changes** & 12.58 & 579.77 & 74.11\% \\
**R34—Reputational Risks** & 12.40 & 592.17 & 75.70\% \\
**R8—Progress Tracking Difficulties** & 12.00 & 604.17 & 77.23\% \\
**R30—Lifecycle Emission Assessment Issues** & 11.78 & 615.95 & 78.73\% \\
**R2—Construction Disruptions** & 11.76 & 627.71 & 80.24\% \\
**R42—Unforeseen Soil Conditions** & 11.70 & 639.41 & 81.73\% \\
**R26—Environmental Monitoring Needs** & 11.52 & 650.93 & 83.21\% \\
**R53—Technological Advances** & 11.52 & 662.45 & 84.68\% \\
**R10—Productivity and Organization Issues** & 11.40 & 673.85 & 86.14\% \\
**R11—Outdated Technologies** & 11.16 & 685.01 & 87.56\% \\
**R54—Stakeholder Dynamics** & 11.02 & 696.03 & 88.97\% \\
**R49—Heat Effect** & 10.54 & 706.57 & 90.32\% \\
**R35—Inadequate Training for Staff** & 10.15 & 716.72 & 91.62\% \\
**R47—Erosion and Sedimentation Risks** & 9.88 & 726.60 & 92.88\% \\
**R55—Cultural Considerations** & 9.30 & 735.90 & 94.07\% \\
**R44—Inadequate Emergency Response Planning** & 8.70 & 744.60 & 95.18\% \\
**R1—Community Resistance and Negative Public Opinion** & 8.50 & 753.10 & 96.27\% \\
**R16—Cybersecurity Risks** & 8.41 & 761.51 & 97.34\% \\
**R15—Inclusivity in Stakeholder Decision-Making** & 7.80 & 769.31 & 98.34\% \\
**R14—Labor Disputes and Strikes** & 7.75 & 777.06 & 99.33\% \\
**R23—Cultural Heritage Risks** & 5.25 & 782.31 & 100.00\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: _Cont._This broader interpretation of the Pareto Principle may reflect the unique complexities of bridge projects, where risks are often interconnected and require a more comprehensive evaluation. While this adaptation deviates from traditional applications, it ensures that no significant risks are overlooked while allowing for tailored prioritization based on specific project contexts. This adapted approach to the Pareto Principle ensures a flexible and actionable framework, allowing project teams to address the most critical risks first while maintaining adaptability for diverse project contexts. The next step involves linking these vital risks to the processes within each phase of the bridge lifecycle.