Earthbag construction was pioneered by architect Nader Khalili through a process of filling polypropylene or burlap bags with soil mixtures and stacking them in layers reinforced with barbed wire [5], [6]. Extensive mechanical tests on earthen materials have demonstrated that earthbag structures, when designed according to proper engineering principles, can achieve adequate compressive strength levels suitable for low-rise buildings. A life cycle assessment study [3] highlighted the significant environmental benefits of earth-based buildings, emphasizing that proper moisture control and structural design play a critical role in ensuring their long-term performance.

The field of construction project risk management employs structured approaches to identify, assess, and manage project uncertainties. Foundational work [7] established key principles for construction risk assessment, emphasizing the importance of systematic risk identification and quantitative evaluation techniques. The implementation of international standards such as ISO 31000 has further enhanced risk management practices [4], [8].

The hospitality industry faces specific risks that threaten guest safety, service quality, and brand reputation [9]. Hospitality projects must integrate construction-related risks with operational risks to ensure successful development. Studies have shown that modern hospitality projects are highly dependent on sustainability risks and stakeholder demands [1]. In addition, Hotel construction projects that operate internationally need to implement unique risk management strategies because of their complex nature [10].

With evolving environmental regulations and market requirements, risk management practices that incorporate sustainability elements have gained increasing importance. Research [11] confirmed that stakeholder engagement is a critical factor for success in sustainable projects. Construction projects located in historic tourism areas must address particular social and environmental threats, requiring unique risk assessment protocols [12].

While the research literature has independently examined risks in construction, hospitality, and sustainable projects, there remains a notable gap in studies that integrate these three domains to address the multifaceted challenges of a sustainable hospitality project at a commercial scale employing unconventional construction techniques such as Super adobe. This study seeks to bridge this gap by proposing a comprehensive risk management framework.

This study adopts the principles of ISO 31000 risk management as the foundation for developing a Super adobe hotel–specific framework [1]. The framework was guided by the key principles of ISO 31000: the “project planning” phase in our framework corresponds to the “establishing the context” step in the standard, where objectives and risk thresholds were defined. The “risk identification and assessment” phase directly implements the standard’s “risk assessment” process. The methodology follows established practices for evaluating risks in construction projects, while incorporating adaptations for earth-based building techniques and the unique requirements of the hospitality industry.

This research employs a comprehensive case study methodology centered on a proposed 80-room Super adobe resort hotel project. The case was selected due to its representative scale for commercial eco-tourism and the availability of primary design and financial documentation. The case study encompasses all project stages, from engineering and procurement to construction and operation, allowing for an examination of life cycle risks and their interdependencies. Data were collected through three main methods: 1) analysis of project documents, including architectural drawings and preliminary budget estimates, 2) semi-structured interviews with three project planners and two architects specializing in earth construction, and 3) a brainstorming workshop with the project team.

Risk identification was conducted using multiple techniques, including expert consultation, brainstorming sessions, and cause-and-effect analysis. A panel of five experts, two structural engineers with experience in earth construction, one hotel operations manager, one project finance specialist, and one sustainability consultant, was convened. Risks were initially identified through the nominal group technique and then analyzed using fishbone diagrams for each major risk category.

The assessment methodology integrated both qualitative probability–impact matrices and quantitative financial impact analysis:

I. Qualitative Assessment: A 5×5 probability–impact matrix was applied. Probability was defined on a scale from 1 (Rarely, <10%) to 5 (Almost Certain, >80%). Impacts were rated across cost, time, and quality dimensions on a scale from 1 (Insignificant) to 5 (Severe). The final risk score was calculated as the product of the probability rating and the maximum impact score.

II. Quantitative Assessment: Predicted risk values were calculated using the Expected Monetary Value (EMV) analysis, with the formula:

EMV = Probability (%) × Financial Impact ($). (1)

Financial impacts were estimated based on expert judgment and preliminary cost data from the proposed project design.

Determining the risk levels is as follows: Individual or General, which means:

Individual risks of the project: There are certain conditions or events that may affect the project objectives. General risks of the project: It expresses the effect of uncertainty on the project. Also, the General risk of the project is more than the sum of the individual risks of the project.

These risks are grouped based on their type, which helps make sure we think about all the different possibilities. In the following, we will prepare the list of Risk Breakdown Structure (RBS) of this project. Risk identification is the process of documenting any risks that could keep an organization or program from reaching its objective.

A fishbone diagram is a visual way to look at cause and effect. It is a more structured approach than some other tools available for brainstorming causes of a problem (e.g., the Five Whys tool). The problem or effect is displayed at the head or mouth of the fish. A fishbone diagram helps team members visually diagram a problem or condition's root causes, allowing them to truly diagnose the problem rather than focusing on symptoms. It allows team members to separate a problem's content from its history and allows for team consensus around the problem and its causes. In the following, a fishbone diagram of financial risks is given as an example. The branches cover major categories of root causes that could lead to overall financial risks materializing, such as higher-than-expected costs or lower-than-projected revenues.

Risk Analysis is a proven way of identifying and assessing factors that could negatively affect the success of a business or project.

In the table below, descriptions of risk, risk code, likelihood of risk, risk rating, probability of occurrence, and predicted risk values will be mentioned, which are given additional explanations and required in the risk policy. A total of 53 distinct risks were identified and assessed using probability-impact matrices. High-priority risks (rating ≥15) requiring immediate attention include:

I. Structural stability and durability (SlS04): Rating 15.

II. Project budget overruns (FP01): Rating 15.

III. Operational profitability (FO02): Rating 16.

IV. Insurance coverage gaps (FI04): Rating 20.

V. Business model viability (SBu01): Rating 20.

VI. Target customer awareness (MT01): Rating 20.

The quantitative analysis revealed total potential financial exposure exceeding $20 million across all risk categories, with business model viability and insurance gaps representing the highest individual exposures.

Risk response strategies were developed using four primary approaches aligned with Project Management Institute guidelines [14]:

I. Mitigation Strategies (32 risks): Including structural monitoring programs, quality control protocols, staff training initiatives, and financial controls.

II. Transfer Strategies (8 risks): Comprehensive insurance coverage, contractor liability transfer, and financial hedging instruments.

III. Avoidance Strategies (4 risks): Weather scheduling optimization, structural design modifications, health protocol implementation, and site selection criteria.

IV. Acceptance Strategies (9 risks): Low-impact operational risks and market-driven factors beyond project control.

The monitoring framework establishes key performance indicators and early warning systems based on industry best practices for construction project control [15]. Critical indicators include work package completion rates, quality defect frequencies, budget adherence measures, and stakeholder satisfaction metrics.

Implementation of the framework demonstrated effectiveness in:

I. Systematic identification of previously unconsidered risks specific to earthbag construction II. Quantified financial exposure enabling informed decision-making III. Structured response planning with clear accountability assignments IV. Integrated monitoring systems providing actionable early warning capabilities

This research provides several key contributions to construction risk management literature:

Risk mitigation framework for the commercialization of innovative sustainable construction: The framework successfully adapts established risk management principles to address the unique characteristics of earthbag construction, filling a significant gap in sustainable construction literature.

Hospitality sector application: Integration of construction and operational risk considerations addresses the complete project lifecycle, providing practical guidance for hospitality industry applications.

Quantitative assessment methodology: The combination of qualitative and quantitative risk assessment provides robust foundations for decision-making while acknowledging uncertainties inherent in innovative construction techniques.

Several factors affect framework implementation in practice:

I. Stakeholder engagement: Success requires active participation from all project stakeholders, including investors, contractors, operators, and regulatory authorities. The framework provides structured communication protocols to facilitate this engagement [16].

II. Resource requirements: Implementation requires dedicated risk management resources and specialized expertise in both earthbag construction and hospitality operations. Training and development programs may be necessary to build the required capabilities.

III. Regulatory coordination: Earth-based construction may face regulatory challenges in some jurisdictions, requiring proactive engagement with building authorities and code officials.

A number of limitations should be acknowledged:

I. Limited performance history: Super adobe construction in commercial hospitality represents an emerging application with limited long-term performance data, requiring conservative risk assessments and ongoing monitoring.

II. Regional variations: Soil conditions, climate factors, and regulatory environments vary significantly across potential project locations, requiring framework customization for specific applications.

III. Market evolution: Eco-tourism market dynamics continue evolving, necessitating regular updates to market-related risk assessments and response strategies.

IV. Future research should focus on developing standardized risk metrics for earth-based construction, conducting longitudinal studies of operational super adobe hotels, and investigating integration opportunities with emerging construction technologies.