Challenges in Monitoring the Implementation of Disaster-Resilient Building Regulations: A Delphi Study in Kerman Province, Iran

2.1. Population and Sampling

This study involved human participants (30 experts who participated in interviews and the three-round Delphi process). The research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of Kerman University of Medical Sciences (Approval Code: IR.KMU.REC. 1401.259). All participants were fully informed about the study objectives and procedures, and written informed consent was obtained from each participant prior to the first round of the Delphi process. Participation was voluntary, and the anonymity and confidentiality of all responses were strictly maintained. Participants were experienced professionals in the construction and engineering sector in Kerman Province. Although exact individual ages were not recorded (as they were not deemed relevant to the expert Delphi process), based on their professional roles and typical demographics of licensed engineers and supervisors in the Iranian Construction Engineering Organization, their ages approximately ranged from 35 to 60 years.

2.2. Data Collection Tools

Round 1: An open-ended questionnaire was designed to initially identify challenges from the experts’ perspectives (Table 1). Responses were coded using thematic analysis. The open-ended questionnaire in Round 1 comprised ten specific prompts, including ‘What are the most significant legal gaps in ensuring precise supervision of proper construction execution? and What are the primary legal contradictions in the supervision and execution of buildings?’ Responses were independently coded by two researchers using an inductive approach, with inter-coder reliability assessed via Cohen’s Kappa (κ = 0.82), indicating substantial agreement. The software MAXQDA was utilized to manage coding, track themes, and ensure consistency across the 30 expert responses, which were anonymized to minimize bias.

Round 2: The list of challenges identified in the first round was presented to the experts, who were asked to rank the importance of each challenge on a Likert scale (1 = least important, 5 = most important).

Round 3: The results of the second round (including the mean and standard deviation of rankings) were presented to the experts for final review to reach a consensus. In Round 2, the 21 identified challenges were presented to experts via an online platform, with a 5-point Likert scale used for ranking. The response rate was 93% (28 of 30 experts), and a two-week response window was provided. Round 3 involved sharing the aggregated results (means and standard deviations) for review, maintaining anonymity to encourage unbiased feedback, with a similar two-week timeline to achieve the ≥75% consensus threshold.

2.3. Data Analysis

Qualitative data (from the first round) were coded using thematic analysis with MAXQDA software.

Quantitative data (rankings from the second and third rounds) were analyzed by calculating the mean and standard deviation. Quantitative data (rankings) were analyzed using SPSS v26, with means calculated as μ = Σx/N and standard deviations as SD = √[Σ(x-μ)²/N]. No inferential statistics (e.g., P-values) were applied, consistent with the descriptive nature of the Delphi method. Sampling was purposive, targeting 30 experts with ≥10 years’ experience in construction regulation, selected to represent diverse roles (e.g., 43.3% senior managers, 20% operational staff), with controls for bias implemented through anonymous iterations and consensus validation.

3.1. Challenges Related to Monitoring Tools and Interactions

Regarding the non-compliance with all sections of the National Building Regulations, it should be noted that not all 22 sections are currently implemented. Based on interviewees’ opinions, reasons for non-compliance include the following: Due to high costs and inflation, only a portion of the sections are implemented based on people’s financial capacity. One interviewee stated, “Due to the lack of enforcement of necessary standards by the Standards and Research Institute and the Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Trade, low-quality products are produced, and given the prevailing inflation in the country, people are generally reluctant to use standard products due to their high cost.” Other reasons include a lack of proper education and awareness, insufficient oversight by the Engineering Organization on engineers’ performance, and the fact that most buildings are constructed by owners who lack sufficient knowledge of construction regulations.

Another issue to consider is the lack of a logical balance between the added value of violations and the fines imposed on violators. According to one interviewee, “As long as urban planning and architectural violations are not considered crimes in our country, it will be impossible to deal with violators. The added value from violations far exceeds the fines, encouraging owners and builders to commit violations. Consequently, non-compliance with urban planning and architectural regulations has become a norm in the country, whereas in other countries, such violations are considered crimes, carrying penalties like imprisonment and requiring the restoration of the original state.”

Another challenge is the interaction issues between the Ministries of Labor and Social Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and the Technical and Vocational Organization regarding the certification of construction workers. One interviewee noted, “From 2004 to 2009, the Ministry of Roads and Urban Development allocated a budget for training workers, which reduced the issue of a lack of skilled and trained workers. However, this practice was discontinued afterward.” Some interviewees stated that the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs is responsible for certifying the qualifications of technical workers and issuing skill certificates, but this has not been fully implemented, with only a few workers certified. The shortage of certified workers results in critical tasks, such as welding in steel structures, not being performed accurately or professionally. The root of this issue lies in the lack of coordination between the Ministries of Housing and Urban Development, Labor and Social Affairs, and the Technical and Vocational Organization.

Another issue is the lack of coordination between the Ministries of Housing and Urban Development and Science, Research, and Technology regarding the alignment of university graduates’ qualifications with the needs of the engineering community. The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development is responsible for determining engineers’ qualifications and is fully aware of the required conditions for professional roles in construction. However, due to a lack of interaction between these ministries, there is no alignment between the quality of university graduates and the needs of the engineering community. One interviewee stated, “Scientific field visits in universities are very limited or nonexistent. When we request them, we are told they are not part of the curriculum, and the responsibility lies with the instructor.”

The ineffectiveness of Commission 100 and its inconsistency with the National Building Regulations are another challenge. Commission 100 is the primary authority for addressing construction violations and serves as a source of income for municipalities in Iran. This income is collected through Commission 100 under municipal law. One interviewee stated, “The financial benefits municipalities gain from construction violations through Commission 100 have intensified deliberate violations in urban construction. There is profiteering in Iranian municipalities where regulations and standards are effectively bought and sold.” Another interviewee added, “In my opinion, Commission 100 is entirely flawed because it overlooks any violation after a fine is paid, and then a completion certificate is issued.”

Regarding challenges in implementing the National Building Regulations for reinforced concrete buildings, it should be noted that Chapter 9 defines concrete as a construction material and outlines safety and integrity regulations for the design, calculation, approval, and supervision of reinforced concrete buildings. Supervisors are required to ensure that the concrete meets the strength, durability, and specific environmental requirements outlined in Chapter 9. One interviewee stated, “Supervisors lack the tools to determine the grading of concrete used or to measure its compressive and tensile strength. The slump test used by supervisors only provides a rough estimate of nominal concrete strength, specifically its workability (fluidity or stiffness).”

Deficiencies in municipal regulations regarding building setbacks, floors, and heights are another challenge. According to interviewees, property location plans are provided by owners, and setbacks are generally determined based on detailed urban plans or, in some cases, street profiles. However, significant issues are observed in determining building setbacks from existing streets or their height relative to street levels. Determining the floor level is often not feasible due to the lack of street profiles and the inaccuracy of detailed urban plans, making it impossible for municipal planning departments to assess existing property floors or determine new ones.

Regarding the negative consequences of issuing repair and modification permits, interviewees noted that municipalities issue such permits upon the owner’s request. These permits are intended for simple repairs but are often used for significant modifications. In some cases, owners obtain repair permits but undertake major building reconstructions. Dilapidated buildings, which are either very old (typically with load-bearing walls, sometimes combined with partial steel frameworks) or semi-old (with concrete or steel frameworks), are particularly problematic. Retrofitting very old buildings is nearly impossible due to high costs and implementation challenges. In semi-old concrete buildings, rebar is encased in concrete and inaccessible, and no materials easily bond with the concrete. Identifying weaknesses and retrofitting such buildings is extremely difficult, and welding steel plates or profiles onto concrete frameworks is not a viable solution, especially given the uncertainty about the quality and strength of the concrete used. Retrofitting semi-old steel structures is more feasible, but accessing beams, columns, and connections requires demolishing significant portions of finishing and rough construction, which is costly. Additionally, these buildings are often multi-unit, making agreement among owners challenging. Retrofitting such buildings does not always yield ideal results, and reconstructing dilapidated buildings to mask structural weaknesses can have negative consequences.

Regarding the neglect of Chapter 22 of the National Building Regulations, interviewees noted that current activities of municipalities and the Engineering Organization end once a building receives its completion certificate, leaving issues during the operational phase unaddressed. Chapter 22 pertains to building maintenance and repair, and while citizens worldwide allocate funds for building maintenance, in Iran, the Engineering Organization has not engaged in this area. To prevent incidents like Plasco from recurring, maintenance and repair must be prioritized.

4.1. Legal Challenges Related to Construction Supervisors

Legal challenges related to supervisors and non-compliance with laws and regulations are among the most critical factors highlighted by researchers [15-17]. Ethical and legal issues addressed by the government or institutions are challenges that align with this study’s findings [15]. The identified subcategories in this section include: the presence of multiple authorities in construction, supervisors holding multiple jobs, lack of implementation and agreement on a five-stage supervision process, discrepancy between fees and services provided, incomplete standardization of construction materials and components, shortage of specialized engineers in certain sections of the National Building Regulations, lack of oversight on building facades and quality by architectural supervisors, weak oversight of supervisors’ presence, direct financial relationships between owners and supervisors in non-referred cases, signature selling, and engineers’ lack of awareness of the legal consequences of professional relationships.

According to the referral law in the Engineering Organization, each engineer is annually assigned a specific supervision quota based on square footage, calculated using a specific formula for those with supervision licenses. For example, an engineer might be responsible for supervising 4,500 square meters annually, which could be divided into five 900-square-meter projects, one 4,500-square-meter project, or other configurations. Consequently, a supervisor may handle multiple projects simultaneously, impacting their work quality [18]. One of the issues raised by interviewees was supervisors holding multiple jobs. Before 2013, engineer selection was largely discretionary and traditional. However, since 2013, with the implementation of Article 33 of the Engineering Organization Law, referrals have been conducted legally and systematically [14]. Under the new referral system, engineers must register their information on their provincial Engineering Organization’s website according to new guidelines. It should not be overlooked that the referral law has mitigated issues such as assigning supervision tasks to individuals or legal entities, eliminating direct owner-supervisor financial relationships, and ensuring fairer work distribution [18].

The presence of multiple authorities in construction was one of the most significant issues raised in interviews. Currently, anyone with financial means can undertake construction or high-rise projects. Decision-makers and builders are often individuals without construction expertise, making decisions based on their preferences and altering specifications for economic gain or accessibility. This issue, frequently cited by interviewees as a major problem, can lead to catastrophic outcomes, as seen in cases like the Metropol Abadan disaster.

Standardization of construction materials and adherence to international, national, and local standards must be prioritized by builders. One challenge discussed in this study is the non-compliance with these standards by some local builders. Standardization and quality metrics are emphasized in other studies as well [19], with advancements leading to the use of higher, more specialized standards for smart buildings [20]. Non-compliance with standards can damage buildings and, more critically, harm people and society. Lack of technical standards and awareness regarding structural, fire, acoustic, thermal performance, economic sustainability, and prefabricated construction are similar issues of non-standardization [21, 22]. Another consideration is the mandatory standardization of materials based on regional climates, such as restrictions on using steel beams in high-humidity areas [7].

The shortage of specialized engineers in certain sections of the National Building Regulations was another identified challenge. One interviewee stated, “The shortage of specialized engineers is evident not only in some but in all sections of the National Building Regulations.” A lack of specialized human resources in various fields and even insufficiently trained workers can be problematic [23], as noted in other studies [24]. The importance of engineers’ awareness of the legal consequences of professional relationships and the need for training in standards, ethical, and legal issues is undeniable. Another studied challenge is the lack of education and the urgent need for pre-service and in-service training [22, 25, 27]. Safety and self-protection training is another critical aspect that must be addressed [28-30].

Inadequate or flawed oversight by authorities has been discussed in various studies for years [31, 32]. Insufficient oversight can have multiple causes [33] and ultimately lead to numerous issues for buildings, their efficiency, lifespan, and, most importantly, public safety [23, 34]. If oversight begins at the inception of construction and continues systematically, it can mitigate these issues.

Engineers’ lack of awareness of the legal consequences of professional relationships was frequently mentioned by interviewees. Legally, a supervising engineer who oversees a building and signs off on it is accountable for any issues arising from construction for 30 years from the date of signing, a responsibility often neglected by supervisors [35]. When considering this responsibility alongside supervisors’ fees, the discrepancy between fees and services provided is evident.

4.2. Challenges Related to Monitoring Tools and Interactions

In this study, the identified subcategories in this section include: non-compliance with all sections of the National Building Regulations, lack of a logical balance between the added value of violations and fines, interaction issues between the Ministries of Labor and Social Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and the Technical and Vocational Organization regarding worker certification, lack of coordination between the Ministries of Housing and Urban Development and Science, Research, and Technology regarding the alignment of university graduates’ qualifications with engineering needs, insufficient industry-related courses in university curricula, ineffectiveness of Commission 100 and its inconsistency with the National Building Regulations, implementation issues with the National Building Regulations for reinforced concrete buildings, deficiencies in municipal regulations regarding setbacks, floors, and heights, negative consequences of issuing repair and modification permits, and the neglect of Chapter 22 of the National Building Regulations.

Studies in construction engineering indicate that low construction quality in the country results from non-compliance with the National Building Regulations, flawed construction management cycles, the presence of multiple unclearly accountable authorities, resistance to industrializing construction, use of non-standard materials or fraudulent certifications, superficial inspections without attention to substance, and unclear quality control methods [36].

The lack of construction laws and protocols tailored to societal needs is an identified challenge. The absence or deficiencies in existing protocols can reduce quality and effectiveness in construction. Numerous studies emphasize the need for developing, implementing, and monitoring such protocols [37]. The lack of standard protocols can affect construction execution [38]. While protocols need standardization, some flexibility in certain clauses to meet regional needs is necessary [39]. This issue is not unique to Iran and is a challenge in other regions worldwide [40].

Regarding the ineffectiveness of Commission 100, it should be noted that Commission 100 is a specialized municipal authority, separate from the municipality but based within it. Its members include representatives from the Ministry of Interior, the judiciary, the city council, and the municipality, with the municipal representative present only to provide explanations without voting rights [41]. This law primarily addresses violations of urban planning and national regulations, covering issues such as construction without a permit, excessive density, lack of or unusable parking, encroachment on public spaces, unauthorized change of use, insufficient structural integrity, and non-compliance with technical, sanitary, and urban planning principles [41].

The lack of a logical balance between the added value of violations and fines is a recognized challenge. A precise and dynamic system for assessing violations and determining fines can significantly aid managers and policymakers. This involves identifying needs, recognizing violations based on laws and protocols, and setting fines proportional to the damage caused. The need for an effective violation detection and fining system is supported by other studies [42-44].

Constructive interaction among relevant entities is essential. Any disruption in communication reduces effectiveness. The importance of constructive and effective interactions between relevant ministries and the bridge between industry and academia must be emphasized. Studies highlight the importance of such interactions [45]. Poor communication is a primary cause of conflicts among construction stakeholders during projects [46]. Beyond high-level managerial interactions, fostering dialogue and interaction at lower levels is also necessary. Lack of communication between consultants and contractors is a cause of project delays [47]. Since university graduates enter the workforce, constructive interaction and education tailored to societal needs must be prioritized.