## 3 Methodology
### The Results of the Survey
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Risks**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**S**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**P**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**RI**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Impact on Sustainability Pillars**} \\ \cline{5-8}  & & & & & **EN** & **EC** & **SO** \\ \hline
**R50—Risks from Energy-Intensive Processes:** High energy consumption during construction can increase costs and environmental impact. & 3.5 & 4 & 14 & High & Moderate & Low \\ \hline
**R51—Regulatory Changes:** Changes in laws or regulations during the project could introduce new risks. & 3.7 & 3.4 & 12.58 & Low & High & Moderate \\ \hline
**R52—Political Factors:** Shifts in political support or policy priorities may impact project funding or community support. & 3.7 & 3.7 & 13.69 & Low & High & High \\ \hline
**R53—Technological Advances:** New technologies emerging during the project could affect existing plans or introduce new risks. & 3.6 & 3.2 & 11.52 & Low & High & Moderate \\ \hline
**R54–Stakeholder Dynamics:** Changes in key stakeholders or their interests might create unforeseen challenges. & 3.8 & 2.9 & 11.02 & Low & Moderate & High \\ \hline
**R55—Cultural Considerations:** Failing to address cultural sensitivities in the area can increase community opposition. & 3.1 & 3 & 9.3 & Low & Low & High \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: _Cont._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Risk**} & **Risk Impact (RD)** & **Cumulative Impact** & **Cumulative Percentage** \\ \hline
**R20—Financial Risks** & 25.00 & 25.00 & 3.20\% \\
**R7—Cost and Schedule Planning Issues** & 24.00 & 49.00 & 6.26\% \\
**R9—Design and Construction Errors** & 22.50 & 71.50 & 9.14\% \\
**R5–Information Management Issues** & 22.08 & 93.58 & 11.96\% \\
**R45–Financial Impacts from Design Changes** & 20.70 & 114.28 & 14.61\% \\
**R6—Resource Planning Issues** & 20.68 & 134.96 & 17.25\% \\
**R48—Conflicts in Contract Documents** & 18.86 & 153.82 & 19.66\% \\
**R27—Weather and Geological Risks** & 18.45 & 172.27 & 22.02\% \\
**R25–Natural Disaster Risks** & 18.04 & 190.31 & 24.33\% \\
**R31–Material Quality and Supply Risks** & 17.22 & 207.53 & 26.53\% \\
**R12–Construction Quality Issues** & 17.20 & 224.73 & 28.73\% \\
**R13–Contractor Management Problems** & 16.80 & 241.53 & 30.87\% \\
**R24–Worker Safety and Health Risks** & 16.80 & 258.33 & 33.02\% \\
**R19–Environmental Impact Assessments** & 16.40 & 274.73 & 35.12\% \\
**R30–Foor Communication and Stakeholder Engagement** & 15.99 & 290.72 & 37.16\% \\
**R29–Supply Chain Disruptions** & 15.99 & 306.71 & 39.21\% \\
**R40–Impact of Climate Change** & 15.99 & 322.70 & 41.25\% \\
**R28–Data Management Challenges** & 15.91 & 338.61 & 43.28\% \\
**R18–Data Use in BIM Processes** & 15.60 & 354.21 & 45.28\% \\
**R37–Budgeting for Future Maintenance** & 15.60 & 369.81 & 47.27\% \\
**R22–Pollution and Waste Management Issues** & 15.20 & 385.01 & 49.21\% \\
**R38–Inefficient Resource Utilization** & 15.20 & 400.21 & 51.16\% \\
**R36–Inflexible Project Management** & 14.80 & 415.01 & 53.05\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: The required data for the Pareto chart for risks. The results from Table 8 and Figure 3 illustrate the application of the Pareto principle, showing that the most critical risks--those that collectively account for 80% of the impact on the bridge project lifecycle--are concentrated on the left side of the chart, specifically from R20 to R30, totaling 38 risks. Notably, most of the risks identified based on international standards fall within this range. This finding deviates from the typical Pareto distribution, where approximately 20% of causes account for 80% of effects. Instead, these risks affect a larger proportion of processes, reflecting the complex and interconnected nature of risks in bridge projects. While achieving a strict 80/20 distribution was not feasible due to the broader distribution of significant risks across processes, the Pareto Principle served as a valuable tool to prioritize and rank risks systematically.