... In line with the literature and previous empirical evidence, Fig. 2 included the general hypotheses proposed to test in this article. In Model 1, it is proposed that site complexity (Global factor 1, GF1) has a positive relationship with each of the 10 risk variables considered in this study (this is the general hypothesis 1); while resources on site (Global factor 2, GF2) have a negative impact Bavafa et al., 2018*;Dillon et al., 2017*;Grill & Nielsen, 2019*;Gunduz & Laitinen, 2017*;Hinze, Thurman, et al., 2013;López-Alonso et al., 2013;Manu et al., 2013;Swuste et al., 2012;Xia et al., 2020*;Yung, 2009Yung, , 2009Zhang et al., 2018 (Adam et al., 2009;Alruqi & Hallowell, 2019*;Bavafa et al., 2018*;Baxendale & Jones, 2000;Borys, 2012;Conchie et al., 2013;Dillon et al., 2017*;Grill & Nielsen, 2019;Gunduz & Laitinen, 2017;Hallowell & Gambatese, 2009;Hinze, Thurman, et al., 2013;Jarvis & Tint, 2009;Jiang et al., 2015*;Mahmoudi et al., 2014;Manu et al., 2013;Ros et al., 2013;Yung, 2009*) on each risk variable (which is the general hypothesis 2). In the case of Model 2, since it decomposed both global factors (GF1 and GF2) into their two factors considered in Forteza et al.'s (2017) model, the hypotheses of their effects on each risk on site variables are stated accordingly, that is, the two factors related to complexity increase all variables of risk on site, while the two factors reflecting level of resources reduce all variables of risk on site. ...