Seneviratne, K; Perera, S; Ginigaddara, B; Jin, X; Tang, L and Osei Kyei, R (2024) Good practices in COVID-19 risk reduction adopted by Australian construction enterprises. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 14(3), pp. 449-469. ISSN 2044-124X
Abstract
Purpose: This research investigated the impacts of COVID-19 on construction enterprises and good practices adopted by the enterprises in reducing COVID-19 risks. The Sendai Framework (TSF) is widely accepted as a strategic roadmap to reduce disaster risks throughout the life cycle of a disaster. As such, with the aim of enhancing the resilience of Australian construction enterprises, the identified good practices were mapped with TSF priorities to consolidate COVID-19 risk reduction practices that can be adopted by Australian construction enterprises. Design/methodology/approach: Case study research approach was used, and three case studies were conducted with small, medium and large construction enterprises. Small, medium and large enterprises were selected based on the Australian Bureau of Statistics classification of the business size. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews conducted with three executive members from the three enterprises. Data were analysed using content analysis. Findings: The study found that construction enterprises faced demand and supply side impacts. Infrastructure projects, funded by public sector clients and larger enterprises were least affected. Investments and demand for residential and other building projects were reduced by private sector clients, affecting small and medium enterprises. Findings also show that the construction enterprises adopted good practices in identifying, managing, investing on resilience and recovery that align with TSF priorities. All three enterprises agreed on some common good practices on risk identification, risk management and effective recovery. Different views were shared on investments related to disaster resilience. Practical implications: This study contributes to mitigate the COVID-19 impacts on construction enterprises and subsequent economic and social impacts. Originality/value: This research found how Australian construction enterprises survived during COVID-19. The study adopted TSF to construction and COVID-19 context while consolidating COVID-19 risk reduction practices.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; construction enterprises; COVID-19; good practices; resilience; the Sendai framework |
| Index terms: | interview, COVID-19, recovery, risk reduction, disaster risk, case study, private sector, disaster resilience, content analysis, public-sector client, life cycle, good practice, Australia, risk identification, methodology, risk management, executive, statistics, infrastructure project, social impact |
| Subjects: | health risk and incident analysis, performance measurement, research methods, Geography, financial risk, sociology, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, data collection methods, risk assessment, mathematical modelling, climate science, value management, practitioner, operations management, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management, Geographical Context, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Sustainability, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here