Investigating the impact of community disruptions on construction projects in South Africa: stakeholders’ perspective Open Access

Physical infrastructure, such as residential buildings, hospital facilities, schools, markets, etc., can advance community development. Infrastructure development is a driving force and enabler for community economic growth, especially for developing countries (Bikitsha and Amoah, 2020). This is because infrastructure attracts prospective local and international investors. The provision of physical infrastructure may face disruptions, especially in developing countries. Hence, community disruptions impact construction projects and may cause a disaster if not mitigated. Disruptions can enhance socio-economic challenges. Batouli and Mostafavi (2018) affirmed that disaster-induced community disruptions include physical infrastructure such as evacuation orders, property/business interruption losses, and hazards. This may have substantial impacts on residents’ well-being if not curbed. Globally, despite the continuous growth of mega and giga projects, the construction industry faces many causes of productivity losses, especially in developing countries. Sanni-Anibire et al. (2020) identified delays as one general source of productivity losses in construction. Aibinu and Jagboro (2002) described a delay as a scenario where a construction project’s completion time is postponed because of causes that may be related to the stakeholders. This includes the contractor, consultant, client, host community, etc. Delays are the product of community disruption.

Ward and Production Technology Division (2017) and Morss et al. (2018) identified the impacts of community disruption. This includes delays, economic decline, property or business interruption, economic hardship, injury, and loss of life. Nyangiwe et al. (2023) found that the South African construction industry, particularly infrastructure delivery, has been hurt due to disruptions. Besides Nyangiwe et al. (2023), who adopted a quantitative research design approach, none, including Ward and Production Technology Division (2017) and Morss et al. (2018), proffered measures to prevent or mitigate the social issue. Nyangiwe et al. (2023) emphasised knowledge and understanding of the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) Act and the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework (PPPFA) Act. Thus, mitigating these disruptions is critical for community development and infrastructure sustainability. This is part of the study’s motivation. Thus, conventional disaster planning regards the mitigation–preparation–response–recovery sequence in linear terms (Freitag et al., 2014). Koliou et al. (2018) opined that adaptive methods are suitable for circumstances of gradual change, such as flooding. Developing community resilience around construction projects may be a way to curb disasters from community disruptions, especially in developing countries, including South Africa. Ward and Buckley (2016) affirmed that community disruption is one of the major disruptive forces. Ward and Buckley (2016) emphasised the new disruptive-change capabilities within civil society organisations (CSOs) to help change the development landscape.

The disruption of construction projects may be plaguing South Africa in the 21st century. Zabyelina and Thachuk (2022) identified the main culprits, the “construction mafia,” an organised crime groups that manifest through local business forums in the industry. Zabyelina and Thachuk (2022) emphasised that the group poses legitimate agents of radical economic change. However, the line between violent aggression and genuine economic aspirations is frequently blurred. Studies (Ebekozien et al. 2023a, b) have shown that infrastructure is crucial for economic development. South Africa is not exempted, and continuous investment in infrastructure will support the country’s 2030 goals (National Planning Commission, 2012). More and Aye (2017) and Ebekozien et al. (2023a, b) avowed that investment in infrastructure is key to economic growth. Despite studies (Malete and Khatleli, 2019) identifying community disruption as a critical factor delaying projects in South Africa, there is a lack of in-depth analysis of the impact of community disruptions on construction projects from an unexplored (qualitative) approach. This study investigates the impact of community disruptions on South African construction projects. Addressing this gap is germane, as extant literature indicates that community disruptions have increased (Qhobosheane, 2022). However, there is a scarcity of studies on this issue (Qhobosheane, 2022). This may be attributed to overlooking the impact of community disruptions on projects (Breakfast et al., 2021). Understanding these impacts is pertinent to enhance developing mechanisms to mitigate them in the future. Thus, the results of this study will be valuable to the main parties within the construction industry spectrum, such as Project Managers, Project Steering Committees, end-user communities, and Municipal Project Management Units.

Law Insider (2013) described construction community disruption as unauthorised partaking or disruption by community members affecting site operations, causing delays, hindering access, or damaging the site or equipment. This assertion corroborated Teo and Loosemore (2011), who described it as disruptive collective action aimed at promoting group interests or well-being. Similarly, Alexander et al. (2018) described community protest as a protest where collective demands are raised by a geographically defined community, harmfully impacting the project. In most cases, construction delay is one of the outcomes of community disruptions. This could be attributed to the inadequate understanding of stakeholders’ motivations, interests, and influence throughout different project stages (Di Maddaloni and Davis, 2018). Globally, community disruption, including extortion, affects the construction sector, which imposes significant economic costs. It has been reported that an estimated 2.7 to 7.7 billion euros annually across various Italian sectors, including construction, are lost via extortion (Chiodelli, 2019). Also, Frazzica et al. (2016) reported that Camorra’s extortion of local businesses amounts to 950 million euros annually, with 200 million euros attributed to the construction sector. These figures highlight the substantial financial burden imposed by organised crime, resulting from community disruptions, and may be compounded in developing countries such as South Africa. This is a concern for the industry’s parties. AUC/OECD (2022) found that sub-Saharan Africa lags behind other developing regions’ infrastructure performance, including South Africa, hindering economic development. Thus, infrastructure rollout is critical to South Africa. Infrastructure project delays in sub-Saharan Africa are attributed to many issues (Gbahabo and Ajuwon, 2017). This includes macroeconomic instability, technical deficiencies in project planning, and weak institutional governance.

In many developing countries, including Nigeria, community disruptions on construction projects take varying degrees and magnitudes. In Nigeria, it is mainly controlled by the “children of landowners” also known as “Omo-Onile” or “son-of-the-soil.” Odunfa et al. (2023) affirmed that the Omo-Onile imposes varying charges for different facets of land development, including land purchased in their host community at different building project stages. It implies that the housing developers/building contractors most of the time experience non-violent or violent extortions at every stage of development. Adeshina et al. (2016) and Olokoyo et al. (2015) found that violence is inevitable when housing developers resist the financial charges. The Omo-Onile concept is pervasive and complex regarding residential building land matters and has reshaped the dynamics of Nigerian urban development (Adeniyi, 2020; Adegoke, 2022).

Community disruptions in construction projects have important implications. This includes forcefully acquiring residential building land, fraudulent, deceitful, and using unlawful approaches to resources belonging to public authority, private enterprises, and individuals (Odunfa et al., 2023). This activity is a global issue because of its implications for free trade policies. Victor et al. (2023) found that land-grabbing is one of the root causes of community disruption, especially in developing countries. This may be pronounced in the new urban layout. In South Africa, Rasebotsa et al. (2025) and Oshungane and Kruger (2017) identified community disruption as one of the critical issues hindering social infrastructure projects, including housing provision. Rasebotsa et al. (2025) focused on the impact of lax delivery of social infrastructure projects in Limpopo and Mpumalanga provinces in South Africa. In the opinion of Ebekozien et al. (2024), community disruption is categorised as a risk in turbulent times. This is because the consequences of construction project risks in turbulent times, such as construction projects’ performance, quality, time, and cost impacts, are related to the outcome of community disruption if not managed well. Nemakhavhani and Khafiso (2025) found that disruption can lead to time overruns in construction projects. Hence, mechanisms should be adopted to either prevent or mitigate disruptions.

This study outlines the adopted research methodology, including the paradigm, as presented in Figure 1. Ebekozien et al. (2025) described a paradigm as a philosophical framework that guides a study and shapes how scholars interpret their environment. Kivunja and Kuyini (2017) and Ebekozien (2019) also opined that a paradigm represents a worldview, school of thought, or belief system for researchers to assign meaning to data. Hence, this research employed an interpretive paradigm, an inductive approach, and a qualitative research design. This is because of the research question pattern, and aligns with Bikitsha and Amoah (2020), who adopted a qualitative research method via semi-structured interview questions to identify the risk factors influencing emerging building developers in South Africa. Mwanaumo (2013) opined that qualitative studies are more sensitive to nuances, more detailed, and better understand context. In the opinion of Ebekozien et al. (2025), studies that adopt an inductive approach are concerned with context, making the research of a small sample of subjects more apposite. This study focuses on understanding why something is happening rather than merely describing what is happening. Thus, an inductive approach is more appropriate than a deductive one (Saunders et al., 2019; Ebekozien, 2019). Regarding the interpretive paradigm, it focuses on understanding human behaviour and social settings (Motloutsi, 2019). It is an alternative to the positivist paradigm. Likewise, the qualitative approach and interpretive paradigm were applicable because they provided insight into how subjective experiences shaped community perceptions and informed their actions. Therefore, this research aimed to explore the impact of community disruptions on South African construction projects. To achieve this goal, gaining an in-depth understanding of the experiences of critical stakeholders involved was pertinent.

This research target population includes the consultants, the general workforce, subcontractors, the project management team, and the surrounding communities of the Tshwane University of Technology projects in South Africa. A population represents a specific sector within a wider population that is best positioned to serve as a primary source for the research (Ebekozien et al., 2025). In qualitative research, the “study population” does not need a rigid definition, ensuring that the targeted population and research questions adequately address the research problem (Ebekozien et al., 2019, 2025). This research employed a purposive sampling technique. It is a type of non-probability sampling. Ebekozien et al. (2025) described it as a sampling technique that involves intentionally selecting participants based on specific qualities they possess, such as knowledge or experience relevant to the research. This approach is suitable for this study because of the sensitive nature and knowledgeable participants are critical to enhance the findings. This non-random technique may not require underlying theories or a fixed number of participants. Qualitative studies mostly use it to identify information-rich cases for optimal resource utilisation. The technique highlights the relevance of interviewees’ availability and willingness to contribute in addition to their expertise (Ebekozien et al., 2025). In adopting purposive sampling, this study identified potential participants based on their knowledge and experience. Inclusion in the sample was determined by participants’ first-hand experience with construction projects affected by community disruptions, their superiority within their respective organisations, and their accessibility. The approach assisted in mitigating issues connected with a small sample size and, by extension, improved the study’s results’ reliability and credibility.

This study adopted semi-structured qualitative interviews as the primary data collection instrument, as presented in  Appendix.  Appendix presents a sample of the semi-structured interview questions that were used to engage key parties, such as the consultants, the general workforce, subcontractors, the project management team, and the surrounding communities. The same interview questions were used. This is because of the participants’ knowledge of construction projects and community disruptions in South Africa, which cut across the engaged groups. However, there were instances where additional questions emerged from the participants’ responses. In line with Liu (2018) and Ebekozien et al. (2025), a thorough preparation and careful design of interview questions are germane for scholars conducting interviews with participants. This research interviewee provided a diverse representation of age, gender, professional experience, and educational qualifications, contributing to understanding the South African construction industry dynamics. This research accomplished saturation with 11 interviewees from the engaged 15 participants, who were heterogeneous, as presented in Table 1. This aligns with Saunders et al. (2019), who opined that saturation in oral interviews can be reached in 4–12 interviewees with homogeneous samples and 12 to 30 interviewees when samples are heterogeneous. Guest et al. (2020) and Ebekozien et al. (2025) affirmed that saturation is established when no new concept exists from the interviewees. Guest et al. (2020) described saturation as the point during data analysis at which incoming data points (interviews) produce little or no new useful information relative to the study objectives. However, Guest et al. (2020) discovered that six to seven interviews in a homogeneous sample and 11–12 interviews are required to reach higher degrees of saturation.

The researchers meticulously developed the study’s interviews, incorporating open-ended questions directly tied to the main research inquiries. To ensure the questions’ appropriateness and alignment with the study’s objectives, the researchers sought feedback from senior colleagues with extensive research experience. The researchers leverage semi-structured interviews because they can deviate from the original set of questions and allow for follow-up inquiries. This study adopted a face-to-face interview approach. Face-to-face interviews prove beneficial for obtaining high-quality data and gaining a subjective, in-depth understanding of a phenomenon from interviewees (Creswell and Creswell, 2018; Aigbavboa et al., 2023a, b). Semi-structured interviews also permit scholars to correct misunderstandings and clarify questions to the participants. The researchers conducted the interviews through an online virtual platform that lasted 30–45 min. The researchers also adopted video recordings as the instrument for data collection with the participants’ approval. This is in line with the global best practices regarding ethical consideration. The researchers employed emotion, narrative, invivo, and themeing coding techniques in line with Corbin and Strauss (2015) and Ebekozien et al. (2025). This research generated 83 codes and re-grouped them based on frequency, occurrence, and reference to ten categories. The researchers generated five themes from the ten sub-themes. Regarding this study’s validity, the researchers used an autonomous practitioner to cross-check the sub-themes and themes in line with Ebekozien et al. (2020, 2023a, b, c). In line with Yin (2014), to further enhance the study’s reliability and mitigate biases associated with qualitative research, refer to Table 2. Table 2 is explained in a tabulated pattern with words such as reliability, validity, generalisability, transferability, credibility, and dependability.

This section presents the results of the impact of community disruptions on construction projects as perceived by the participants. Among the engaged interviewees, two were females, and nine were males. Age ranges from 31 to 60 years old, with a satisfactory distribution across various stages of professional life. The interviewee’s wealth of experience, ranging from eight to 36 years, enhanced the study’s findings. Academic qualifications include postgraduate diplomas, bachelor’s, honours, national diplomas, and master’s degrees. It reflects a broad educational background and enhances the outcome of the results. Also, the participants engaged in construction projects ranging from eight to 400. This will improve the study’s findings based on the experience from these projects. The findings elucidate through direct quotes from the participants, with the relevant insights organised under distinct sub-themes. The sub-themes include the impact on the community, impact on the construction industry, the impact on infrastructure development, the project-based impact, and the severity of the community disruptions.

This theme is sub-divided into sub-themes to enhance the presentation of the findings. This includes social cohesion and community wellness, community economy, and community development.

The findings show the profound impact of community disruptions on social cohesion and community wellness. The prevailing trend of unequal benefits from projects creates tension and a lack of cohesion within communities. This disparity results in a “have and have-not” culture, as certain individuals or groups benefit while others do not. Disruptions also lead to animosity among community groups, undermining the intended positive impacts of development projects (majority). Participant P1 says, “… …. What it does in the community is it creates tension. So, if one group does not benefit from the current project, they will want to benefit from the next. There is always friction and a lack of cohesion. It destroys social cohesion in the community rather than bringing together social cohesion in the communities. It creates a culture of have and have-not in the community …..” Findings reveal that its impact has compounded basic health infrastructure to the extent that mothers must travel long distances for their maternity and child delivery. The agitation has created many sub-groups. “ …. You have a flare-up of all these forums; you find so many forums within one ward because they fight to be recognized as the most powerful …” said Participant P3. Participant P4 says, “ …. This approach may create commotion within it. You find that the community starts being divided among itself due to community disruptions caused by a project. What is supposed to be a project that positively impacts a community divides the community and creates chaos. And so that that happens quite a lot …..” Findings show that social cohesion and the delivery of construction projects can be balanced by engaging the military during construction to mitigate the crisis. Then the unanswered question would be, “Is this the society we want to build?” Communal division and chaos emerge, hindering social growth and denying residents the secondary benefits of improved living conditions. Furthermore, the emergence of competing forums within wards intensifies the struggle for recognition and power. Consequently, community disruptions not only impede project delivery but also fracture the very fabric of social unity, creating a significant challenge for both development initiatives and the overall well-being of affected communities.

Exploring the impact of community disruptions on the economy, findings show various insights, including denying themselves employment opportunities and threats to indigenous small contractors’ survival and the community. Participant P7 says, “ …. On the community itself, it hits them in the pocket because the general rule in construction is no work, no pay, especially for the sub-contractors. If there is a disruption, no production work will be on-site, so you cannot pay your subcontractors. They also, in turn, cannot pay their guys who are most likely the guys from the community ….” One of the participants shared an experience regarding this matter. Participant P8 says, “… … I talked about a road that was never completed in Mamelodi. I can talk about Mamelodi because I worked there. I can talk about the labour court in Mamelodi, which was never completed. This was a large project that was meant to be of service. Just imagine the service and employment the labour court would have created for the host community if allowed to be completed. So, there’s a huge disadvantage on the part of the community ….” Findings show the profound economic consequences of community disruptions, ranging from the denial of job opportunities to the potential hindrance of economic growth and local development. Also, it can lead to violence and increased crime if not curbed. Findings agree with Long et al. (2024), who found that community social disruptions can lead to personal life disruption, family disruption, crime, and violence.

The study’s findings show the far-reaching consequences of disruptions. The findings underscore the reluctance of contractors to engage in projects in specific areas due to the undesired effects of community unrest (majority). Some contractors take a decisive stand, ceasing operations and refusing to incur costs until issues with the community are resolved. The construction industry witnesses a concerning trend where professionals and contractors shy away from working in certain regions, reflecting the unsettling nature of community-related challenges (P1, P3, P6, P10, & P15). Participant P1 says, “ …. It has the undesired effect in that most contractors become reluctant to do projects in certain areas ….” Findings show that a community crisis caused contractors’ unplanned stoppage of work. Participant P6 says, “… … in some cases, contractors say”, “Listen, I’m going to stop, I’m going to leave, I’m not incurring any costs until you sort out your issues with the community …..” Also, Participant P2 says, “ …. .well, communities have lost their own projects where a certain government department was to build their CHC in Hammanskraal because of the community unrest, it went two years without movement. So, meaning the community in Hammanskraal lost their association, that budget was not allocated to them ….” Service delivery hindrances emerged as one of the impacts (P2, P6, & P10). Participant P10 says, “ …. Firstly, the major one would be lack of service delivery from what I’ve seen. I’ll give you an example. I was not involved in that project, but I’ve seen a disruption in Soshanguve, whereby the road was supposed to be resurfaced. It’s a bus route … …” Findings agree with Qhobosheane (2022) and Nyangiwe et al. (2023), who found that organised groups, often called the construction mafia or business forums, are the main instigators, with the primary motivation being the extraction of funds from projects.

This theme is sub-divided into sub-themes to enhance the presentation of the findings. This includes impact on the contractors, professionals, and industry.

In this sub-theme, the findings provide insightful perspectives on the impact of community disruptions on construction contractors in developing countries, particularly South Africa. These disruptions manifest in significant financial strains, particularly for small contractors who often struggle to survive such challenges (majority). The adverse impact is felt throughout the industry, with contractors facing bankruptcy (P2, P5, P9, & P13), delayed growth (P1, P3, & P8), and substantial financial losses (P1, P2, P6, P11, & P13). Participant P1 says, “ …. The complexity of construction contracts compounds these challenges, as small contractors lack the sophistication to navigate unfavourable conditions and recover costs effectively. Larger contractors, though more adept at managing disruptions, still grapple with the negative consequences ….” Also, Participant P3 says, “… … the community took over the project, leading to financial challenges for the contractor. In that case, they were paid a ridiculous amount. It is not surprising that the contractor went bankrupt …. It is difficult for the indigenous small contractors to survive. They don’t survive ….” This claim by Participant P1 was corroborated by Participant P2, who says, “ …. I’ve seen many contractors go bankrupt as a result of this kind of actions by the community because sometimes they are not willing to come to the party, to assist them financially … we’ve seen contractors make commitments to communities and they end up at the end of the project, actually having made substantial amounts of losses as a result …..” findings show that the impact hurts many construction contractors. This threatens their survival because of the financial implications, especially small contractors’ category (majority). Findings agree with Batouli and Mostafavi (2018), who affirmed that disaster-induced community disruptions include physical infrastructure such as evacuation orders, property/business interruption losses, and hazards.

Examining the impact of community disruptions on construction professionals is pertinent and sheds light on the dire consequences faced by these groups of people in the industry. Professionals, such as project managers, architects, quantity surveyors, urban and regional planners, land surveyors, and engineers, experience significant financial strains as their fees are intricately tied to the progress of the construction projects (majority). The disruption results in financial losses and affects the professionals’ personal lives, leading to instances of colleagues losing their homes and livelihoods. Financial losses, resource commitments, and potential threats to personal safety are identified as the impact of community disruptions on construction professionals (majority). Furthermore, disruption extends to the professionals’ commitment to resources, causing opportunity costs and hindering their ability to allocate resources to other projects. Participant P3 says, “… …. If a project is stopped due to community disruptions, the professionals involved will be hurt too. This is because payment is made based on work progress. The non-payment will hurt their families too because the source has been blocked … …” In the opinion of Participant P11, architects are exempted from this challenge, and project managers take the hit most. The ones who must sign off at every stage. Participant P11 says, “… …. Cash flow will also affect the professionals. They go out to the site; maybe somebody can even be a full-time resident engineer ….”

Reputational risks for professions, contractual vulnerabilities, skills flight among professionals, and hindrances to skill development are identified as the impact of community disruptions on the construction industry (majority). Participant P8 says, “ …. It affects the legitimacy of the profession, for example … I know big business guys who have fully incorporated criminals into their businesses. They are always given some title. This is just to try and manage the criminal aspect of it, but as I said, some criminals have opened their own companies, but I think it is usually a reputational risk for the industry itself. I’m talking about engineering as a profession; it’s a very respected, like the work they do …. It affects the reputation of professionals in South Africa. They are no longer trusted ….” Participant P8 submission was corroborated by Participant P1, who says, “ …. The wider impact is that it has almost diminished skills. I’m not sure if people are getting upskilled, which should be the desired outcome … The disruptions don’t enable a smooth process and continuation of the skill. If I’m gaining my skills in this geography, I may have to go somewhere else, but the community disruptions do not allow that because they tend to be geography-specific and narrow. They close off entry levels and unskilled people who would have had the opportunity to upskill themselves ….”

This theme is sub-divided into sub-themes to enhance the presentation of the findings. This includes economic impact, public and private sector’s impact, and social impact. Findings agree with Nyangiwe et al. (2023), who affirmed that these disruptions have hurt the construction industry in South Africa, including infrastructure delivery. This impact cut across the three sub-themes.

The construction industry is critical for the delivery of physical infrastructure development. Participant P9 says, “ …. . The economic impact on infrastructure development is severe because if you get a delay, production will be affected. When there’s no production, it affects a lot of issues, including finance ….” Participants P6 and P11 emphasise that community disruption on the project will hinder infrastructure development. There is a growing concern about reducing construction activities due to community disruptions (majority). This is good for the country. Participant P8 says, “ …. The construction sites in townships are reducing. When I moved to Mamelodi, 15 projects were running parallel, including malls and schools. There were also fewer killings because the cake was big to share. Now there are fewer projects; there are, I think, four projects in the whole of Mamelodi … ….” Findings agree with Ward and Production Technology Division (2017) and Morss et al. (2018), who opined that disruption activities could cause substantial impacts on residents’ well-being. The impacts include economic decline, property or business interruption, economic hardship, injury, and loss of life.

Participant P10 says, “… … I’ve noticed that this project depends on the client. If it’s a municipality like Tshwane, they become worse, but if the client is a private one, they are not necessarily viewed as a government. Some entities are not viewed as a government, so they become lenient. If you say it’s Tshwane or it’s a city of Johannesburg, then they become more intense in that situation ….” Findings reveal that most government construction projects are slower and more complicated with community disruptions than private ones. Participant P3 says, “… … choosing not to do government projects because this happens more in government projects than in the private sector. But it does happen in the private sector, not at the same level ….. Government infrastructure business is huge, so the government projects are a lot more than the private sector ….”

Participant P5 says, “… … I think, if you go to the media, every day you find so and so in a community that’s been killed in daylight. So, do you think communities are not living in fear? They are. And what does this fear do to the forums? It feeds their control. So, the community is scared to do anything because people can be killed in daylight, and no one gets arrested. Confidence in the state becomes weak. Law enforcement becomes weak, which means vigilantism will worsen … …” These are some of the social impact of community disruptions on infrastructure development. The crises need to be curtailed because the threats are increasing geometrically (P1, P3, P11, & P14). Government policies and programmes, including law enforcement agencies, have not helped matters. The lax approach has fuelled the issue. Participant P1 says, “… … people see those who are aggressive and violent as the ones winning opportunities, so it creates a certain disharmony rather than leaving the community better off. It tends to leave the community worse off … …” Findings agree with Batouli and Mostafavi (2018), who affirmed that disaster-induced community disruptions include physical infrastructure such as evacuation orders, property/business interruption losses, and hazards. The disruptions in infrastructure development are a complex challenge that extends beyond the immediate construction setbacks. It encompasses economic setbacks, challenges in project management, and adverse social consequences.

This theme is sub-divided into sub-themes to enhance the presentation of the findings. This includes impact on project duration, impact on project costs, and impact on project quality. Findings show that the project-based impact of community disruptions on development initiatives is substantial and affects critical aspects such as duration, cost, and quality. Regarding the duration, disruptions introduce a stop-and-start dynamic that erodes the momentum of construction projects, leading to significant delays (P2, P4, P7, P11, P12, & P15). As highlighted by several participants, this fluctuating work pattern can persist for months, ultimately extending the initially projected timeline (majority). This temporal uncertainty not only jeopardizes the timely completion of projects but also contributes to a loss of intellectual capital, as key personnel may leave during extended disruptions.

Time is critical in construction, particularly in infrastructure development. Participant P7 says, “… … on those disruption days, you can lose momentum on the construction site. You can claim to regain work, but if the momentum is gone, the momentum is gone … …” Community disruptions will negatively impact time management. Participant P4 says, “ …. Every construction project must have the planned start and stop element/time. Any extension or disruptions may hinder the project because the main team may have resigned or transferred ….” Findings agree with Malete and Khatleli (2019), who identified community disruption as a top critical factor delaying projects in South Africa.

Participant P9 says, “ …. Sometimes, infrastructure is quite severe because you must divert your budget to deal with the extension of time instead of moving on to another project. This is mainly because of the cost of delays ….” One of the impacts of community disruption is that many infrastructure (built and on-going) may be destroyed, leading to higher project costs. There are cases of project abandonment (majority). Findings show that an extension of time resulting from community disruptions may trigger the contractor to request claims for the period the project will be extended.

One of the agitations that most lead to community disruptions is imposing local contractors on the project even when it is clear that the technical capacity is not there to handle the job (majority). Participant P5 says, “… … the local contractors, in this case, come in there without even capacity. The only claim they have to participate in a project is that ‘I’m a local’. The consequence of that subsequently will be the quality of the work delivered ….” Also, community disruptions have influenced the reduction of project specifications and, by extension, affected the quality of the project. Participant P8 says, “ …. . Many agitators also want to enter into the construction space by opening companies to participate directly. They apply for those tenders and then insist on their company to be the subcontractor. So, it undermines the professional space, and the quality of product delivered on the ground is compromised ….” This will threaten project quality if allowed to continue without a check (majority).

This theme is sub-divided into sub-themes to enhance the presentation of the findings. This includes physical harm and loss of life, intimidation, emotional harm, and extortion.

Findings show that community disruptions influence the threat of physical harm and loss of life, including fatalities linked to political contestation and violent clashes (P2, P5, P6, P10, P12, & P14). Stakeholders, including professionals and contractors, express fear for their lives. They narrate distressing incidents such as consultants being locked up in site caravans and the emergence of ominous figures known for eliminating individuals associated with project stoppages. Regarding political contestation, Participant P9 says, “ …. When there is an impasse in terms of financial benefits. At times, you have fatalities because of political contestation ….” Also, Participant P6 says, “… ….in some cases people have died because of the community disruptions there. It’s no longer just a threat, it’s happening. Community members kill contractors. And whoever they think is in their way of getting access to that opportunity ….” Findings agree with Batouli and Mostafavi (2018), who affirmed that disaster-induced community disruptions include physical infrastructure such as evacuation orders, property/business interruption losses, and hazards. Sometimes, these cases can be extreme, and lives are involved.

Findings highlight the perceptions of the severity of community disruptions in construction projects with a focus on intimidation and emotional harm. Intimidation and emotional harm are components of the impact of community disruptions on construction projects. The prevailing sense of fear, anxiety, and stress is palpable, with safety concerns at the forefront of professionals' and contractors’ minds (majority). Threats to personal safety, including instances of death threats, underline the severity of the emotional toll faced by individuals navigating these challenging environments (P3, P7, P11, P14, & P15). Participant P10 says, “ …. There is too much fear as it is … Its massive. It’s big. When you must go out to work, you first think about safety ….” This can trigger emotional and psychological dimensions of community disruptions if not curbed.

Extortion is a product of community disruptions because of the criminal undertone associated with the drive. Findings reveal that the pervasive issue of extortion has become ingrained in the operational landscape (majority) and is embraced as a normal phenomenon. Findings express concerns about the sustainability of an industry dependent on such practices, with warnings against complacency and the potential normalization of these detrimental behaviours. Participant P7 says, “… … they just come in and demand a lump sum of money without any work, offering protection or a protection structure … And then there is another group who comes in and says, listen, we are going to shut the site, or you give us such and such and a monthly amount so that you can continue running your site … …” Regarding the criminal undertone, findings agree with Zabyelina and Thachuk (2022), who found that the culprits, also known as the “construction mafia” are organised crime groups that manifest through local business forums in the construction sector. Findings show that extortion may increase if not curbed. This was corroborated by Participant P2, who says, “… …. The extortion will be in higher as time goes on … You can’t feed a gorilla and expect it to be your friend forever, it’s a wild animal. You can’t be its friend. You can’t fall into blackmail and extortion and then think it’s a solution. It’s not a solution. Yes, we do it because we need to finish projects, but we all know this is not an industry our children can inherit because it’s not sustainable. They cannot inherit something whose success thrives on bribes and blackmails and extortions ….” Findings agree with Qhobosheane (2022), who avowed that extortion involves coercing individuals or organisations to comply with demands under the threat of violence or property damage. These attributes are displayed in many South African construction projects (P3, P7, P9, P11, P12, & P13).

This study explored the impact of community disruptions on South African construction projects using an unexplored (qualitative research design) approach. This study has shown the increasing impact of community disruptions on construction projects. This threatens infrastructure development in South Africa. The research identified areas of impact of community disruptions. This includes social cohesion and community wellness, community economy, community development, impact on contractors, professionals, and the industry. Others are economic impact, distinctions between public and private sectors, social impact, effects on project duration, project costs, project quality, severe consequences of physical harm and loss of life, intimidation, emotional harm, and extortion. This study concluded that the government’s role in curbing the social and economic issues associated with community disruptions cannot be over-emphasised. The government across all levels should do more to prevent or mitigate community disruptions on construction projects through a proposed sustainable institutional framework that will engage all stakeholders, particularly the community groups within the sector.

There are emerging implications from the impact of community disruptions on South African construction projects. From the theoretical perspective, the emerging impact of community disruptions on the community, contractor, professionals, industry, and infrastructure delivery contributes to the extant literature gaps in a developing country context such as South Africa. The areas of impact include social cohesion and community wellness, community economy, community development, impact on contractors, professionals, and the industry. Others are economic impact, distinctions between public and private sectors, social impact, effects on project duration, project costs, project quality, severe consequences of physical harm and loss of life, intimidation, and emotional harm, including extortion. Findings also show that strong government institutions can mitigate the social menace and contribute to knowledge by bringing to the forefront an in-depth understanding of the critical impact that will promote the engagement of stakeholders and isolate genuine grievances for urgent necessary attention. Regarding this study’s implications for practices, continuous engagement of stakeholders, especially construction project host communities should be encouraged and sustained through a developed institutional framework. The proposed framework would encompass policies or laws specifying guidelines for community engagement, the appointment process for a Community Liaison Officer (CLO), the project stage at which community notification occurs, the structure of community-business engagements, and the requisite training and qualifications for such engagements.

This research has limitations. This study focused on the impact of community disruptions on construction projects using the Tshwane University of Technology construction projects in South Africa. Second, this research adopted a small sample size via a qualitative research design and engaged experts who indicated interest and were interviewed. To mitigate the impact on the study’s findings and strengthen its reliability and credibility, the researchers used a recognised approach for the semi-structured interview. The findings opened several gaps for future research. Thus, this area of scholarship stands to benefit from future studies that use larger samples to document more encompassing interpretations of the understanding of the impacts of community disruptions on construction projects in developing countries, particularly South Africa. This approach could help us better understand this phenomenon and yield valuable insight. As part of future studies, besides the 16 distinct areas of impact, future studies should explore more impacts of community disruptions on construction projects in developing countries, including South Africa.

Special thanks to the participants for providing scholarly contributions to enhance the findings of this paper. Also, the authors appreciate the comments, suggestions and recommendations provided by the anonymous reviewers, which honed and strengthened the quality of this manuscript during the blind peer-review process.

Funding: This study is funded by the Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment and CIDB Centre of Excellence (05-35-061890), University of Johannesburg, South Africa.

Have you experienced community disruptions in construction projects?

Do you think there are understandable community disruption and unacceptable ones?

What is the impact of these community disruptions on construction projects?

Under what conditions are these disruptions more likely to occur?

Do you think community disruptions happen more in poorer communities?

How long do the disruptions usually last?

What contributes to them being resolved quickly?

What usually happens to make them worse?

What is the attitude of the professional team towards disruptors?

What are the effects of community disruptions?

On the community?

On the contractor?

On professionals?

On the industry?

On infrastructure delivery?

In your view, is the community disruption getting worse or less?

Compared to other delays how significant are the delays due to community disruptions?