Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125934

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Developing a Holistic Occupational Health and Safety risk assessment

model: An application to a case of sustainable construction project
Saeed Reza Mohandes a, *, Xueqing Zhang b
a
Department of Building and Real Estate (BRE), Faculty of Construction and Environment (FCE), The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom,
Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The construction industry has always been infamous due to its staggering numbers of Occupational
Received 18 May 2020 Health and Safety (OHS)-related injuries, resulting from overlooking all the crucial aspects endangering
Received in revised form the involved workers’ lives. Considering this, there has been dearth of a study including all the essential
12 December 2020
Risk Parameters (RPs) for comprehensively assessing the OHS in the construction industry. Theretofore, a
Accepted 8 January 2021
Available online 13 January 2021
Holistic Occupational Health and Safety Risk Assessment Model (HOHSRAM) is developed in the current
study to assess the safety and health of the Construction Workers (CWs’). The developed model is based
Handling Editor: Prof. Jiri Jaromir Kleme
s on the integration of logarithmic fuzzy ANP, interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy TOPSIS, and grey rela-
tional analysis. Based on the application of the developed HOHSRAM to a case of sustainable construction
Keywords: project, the following contributions have been noted; (1) calculating weights related to the safety de-
Occupational health and safety cision makers having different backgrounds involved in the study using logarithmic-fuzzy-based con-
Sustainability strained optimization algorithm, (2) involving the individual biases of the decision makers in the
Sustainable construction assessment stage, (3) determining all the essential RPs to comprehensively assess the OHS within the
Safety risks assessment
construction projects in a systematic way, (4) obtaining the final rankings of the identified safety risks
Interval-valued pythagorean fuzzy numbers
under an interval-valued-Pythagorean fuzzy environment coupled with grey relational analysis. Addi-
Multi-criteria decision-making methods
tionally, it is discerned that the proposed model in this research outperforms the existing assessment
methods used in the construction industry, through conducting a comprehensive comparative analysis.
The developed HOHSRAM is verified to be beneficial for safety professionals by providing them with an
inclusive ranking system, improving the well-being of the involved CWs.
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction quality of human’s life immensely depends on reduction of the

Sustainability is a term that embodies the concepts of three Ps,
including profit, planet, and people; however, the overwhelming
majority of organizations and researchers are mainly concerned
with the first two issues; economic (i.e. life cycle cost assessment,
cost-benefit analysis, etc.) and energy-related matters (such as
energy consumption, emissions reductions, recycling, and so forth)
(Nawaz et al., 2019). With this in mind, researchers have recently
focused on embracing the third concept more deeply, as it is con-
cerned with the social development of the people (Munny et al.,
2019). In this sense, the major focus of social development is on
the health and safety (H&S) of people, due to the fact that the
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: saeedreza.mohandes@polyu.edu.hk (S.R.
zhangxq@ust.hk (X. Zhang).
H&S-associated accidents (Chen and Reniers, 2020). Taking that
into consideration, Nawaz et al. (2019) proved that there is a pro-
found nexus between the safety of people and the sustainable
development, through delving into a number of different case
studies. Moreover, it is claimed that if an accident mutilates any
parties involved in an operation, not only is deteriorated the quality
of the injured parties’ lives, but also their family members’ life
circumstances are worsen; hence, the social development aspect of
the respective sustainable development will be impaired. In this
connection, the construction industry is known as a sector where
myriad specialized groups are combined together to accomplish
different tasks, to wit building, maintaining, and repairing high-
ways, dams, bridges, and etc. (Pinto et al., 2011). Due to the ambi-
guity and uncertainty existing in most of the construction activities
(Sadeghi et al., 2016; Tam et al., 2004), this sector is ill-famed for its
high rates of Occupational Health and Safety (OHS)-related injuries
Mohandes),
(Hinze et al., 2006), and as such, it seems quite justifiable why more

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125934
0959-6526/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.R. Mohandes and X. Zhang
and more numbers of research are being carried out on this area
(Cupido, 2009; Gangolells et al., 2010). High fatality rates reported
in both developed and developing countries corroborates the pre-
cariousness of this industry. To take the U.S as an example, around
18% of the whole proportion of reported cases for fatal-injuries
among all the considered industries occurred on construction
sites (Ayhan and Tokdemir, 2020). As per the studies conducted by
Hamid et al. (2019), around 125% rise in the rate of Malaysian
construction workers’ fatalities were reported over a six-year-
period (from 2009 to 2015). In another study carried out by
Shafique and Rafiq (2019), it is witnessed that the Hong Kong
construction industry is accused of approximately 75% of the
workers’ fatalities among all the included industries.
Taking into consideration the improvement in the Construction
Worker’ (CW) safety, relatively high numbers of scholars have
conducted research on the area of construction safety risk assess-
ment over the recent years. Hallowell (2008) developed a frame-
work for assessing CWs’ safety related to different construction
trades. Aneziris et al. (2010) developed a model for assessing the
risks occurred in tunnel construction using bowtie analysis
method, which are based on the observed data collected from site.
Using statistical data collected from different construction sites,
Fung et al. (2010) developed a risk assessment framework for
assessing risk levels at various project stages with various work
trades with regard to 14 common types of trades, accidents, and
accident causes. Mitropoulos and Namboodiri (2011) came up with
a task-demand assessment approach, and accordingly applied the
proposed approach to two different stages of construction projects.
Aminbakhsh et al. (2013) came up with an amalgamated frame-
work for assessing the safety level of worker through the exploi-
tation of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). In accordance with the
interactions existing in the activities being carried out concurrently,
Esmaeili and Hallowell (2013) developed a decision support system
through the exploitation of Delphi technique. With a view to
improving the workers’ OHS, Sousa et al. (2015) developed an
enhanced model based on the consideration of resources man-
agement. Through the utilization of time-track data for controlling
the exposure of workers to the respective tasks, Isaac and Edrei
(2016) presented a statistical-based model which could be
fostered over time. For the sake of identification of the potential
fatalities associated with construction activities, Malekitabar et al.
(2016) came up with five-level safety drivers influencing either
the likelihood or the impact of the accidents occurred on sites.
Using kernel density estimators and copulas, Tixier et al. (2017)
developed a stochastic-based model for dealing with the identi-
fied safety risks. Raviv et al. (2017) investigated into the accidents
associated with working in close contact with tower crane.
Dewlaney et al. (2012), and Karakhan and Gambatese (2017a)
delved into the safety assessment of workers embroiled in the
sustainable construction projects in the USA, while Hwang et al.
(2018) calculated the magnitude of safety risks occurring in green
building projects in Singapore. GUNDUZ and LAITINEN (2018)
developed a safety assessment framework for dealing with the
risks to which the CWs are exposed, using a new risk matrix based
on two parameters, namely the severity of the injury to the
respective workers together with the current level of control
measures.
One of the major impediments of conducting risk assessment
through probabilistic-based approaches is that the collected data
are tangled with imprecision and inadequacy (Gul and Celik, 2018).
As a result, the aforementioned analysis approach results in dis-
torted outcomes that cannot reflect the proper analysis associated
with the site under consideration (Gul et al., 2019). Considering the
fallacy of the statistical-based assessment methods, the idea of
exploiting Fuzzy Set Theory (FST) came to the picture. Gurcanli and
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125934
Mungen (2009) proposed a method for assessment of the risks on
construction sites using a fuzzy rule-based safety analysis to deal
with uncertain and insufficient data. With the purpose of dealing
with the incompletion appertaining to non-reported data on fatal-
or non-fatal injuries, Debnath et al. (2016) developed a framework
related to the accidents occurred to the CWs. Pinto (2014) pre-
sented a novel fuzzy-based framework, which includes four pa-
rameters, namely probability, severity, safety barriers, and safety
culture. Amiri et al. (2017) developed a fuzzy rule-based system for
assessing the safety risks that threaten the lives of different
working trades involved in construction activities by considering
the site safety condition parameter for the first time in the litera-
ture. Ilbahar et al. (2018) and Karasan et al. (2018) developed Py-
thagorean fuzzy AHP models to assess the risks of an excavation
process related to the involved parties in a construction yard.
Koulinas et al. (2019) exploited the fuzzy extended AHP for devel-
oping a safety risk assessment framework related to the workers
working on construction sites by combining the parameters used in
the common Fine Kinney and FMEA assessment methods.
Mohandes and Zhang (2019) developed a comprehensive risk
assessment model for CWs to overcome the identification, analysis,
and evaluation shortcomings associated with the assessment of
workers’ safety risks. Mete et al. (2019) develops a decision support
system for the workers embroiled in pipeline construction activ-
ities based on the consideration of four parameters (including
severity, probability, sensitivity to non-utilization of PPE, and
undetectability). Mete (2019) and Khan et al. (2019) developed OHS
assessment models concerning three essential parameters used in
the common FMEA (namely probability, severity, and detectability)
for the workers involved in pipeline construction and building
construction activities, respectively. To enhance the well-being of
workers being involved in construction projects, Sanni-Anibire
et al. (2020) and Mohandes et al. (2020) developed safety risk
assessment models using the parameters existing in the common
risk matrix approach.
Following the provisions of comprehensive literature review,
stepping up measures towards developing a comprehensive safety
risk assessment model in the construction industry seems an un-
questionable fact. To substantiate this claim, the common practices
that are extant in the respective industry need to be discussed
firstly. In the construction sector, the overwhelming majority of
firms are inclined to exploit the very traditional safety assessment
approach, which is based on the consideration of two parameters,
namely “probability” and “severity” (Mitropoulos and Namboodiri,
2011). Likewise, the rest of companies are in a favor of adopting Fine
Kinney-based risk assessment method, within which the parameter
“exposure” is added to those considered in the traditional assess-
ment approach. Keeping that in mind, there are three major
problems associated with such approaches adopted on construc-
tion sites (Pinto, 2014). Firstly, only the Injury-related (INJ) pa-
rameters are considered, while the other crucial parameters that
have impact on the safety and health of construction workers are
overlooked. In other words, as mentioned by (Grassi et al., 2009),
there are other crucial factors that affect safety risks, including
Human-, Organizational-, Technological-, and Environmental-
related (HOTE) ones. In fact, in the traditional risk assessment
approach, HOTE factors are considered only in the final estimation
of injury magnitude, which makes the process of assessment quite
passive; however, in an active assessment approach, they should be
considered separately along with the INJ-related ones (Djapan
et al., 2018). In this way, an active safety assessment approach,
which can reflect the inclusive final magnitude of a risk, can be
fostered. Otherwise, the assessment approach used is imbued with
inappropriateness and passiveness as mentioned by (Cheraghi
et al., 2019). Such comprehensive assessment practice has been
S.R. Mohandes and X. Zhang
fostered in different industries, such as aviation (Chang et al., 2015;
Leib and Lu, 2013), industrial plants (Cacciabue, 2000; Mohaghegh
and Mosleh, 2009), and manufacturing (Monferini et al., 2013). In
light of this, there is a need to have a comprehensive assessment
approach that can fully take into account the context of the con-
struction industry. Thus, all the parameters playing role in the
magnitude of safety risks occurred on constructions sites need to be
carefully considered, by involving the INJ-together with HOTE-
related parameters within one holistic model.
In addition to the above-mentioned problem, the majority of
common assessment approaches used in the respective sector are
based on the utilization of raw numbers, which cannot capture the
uncertainty and vagueness involved in the safety analysts’ re-
sponses (Jamshidi et al., 2013). Moreover, the exploitation of fuzzy
sets is much more interpretable for the respective safety experts
involved in the assessment step as compared to numerical values;
thus, more tangible evaluations on the hazards and the resultant
accidents can be achieved (Sadeghi et al., 2020). On top of all that,
regarding the current practice of safety assessment approaches
adopted on construction sites, all the safety analysts involved in
such procedure are viewed with the same care. That is to say, those
having highly-competent profiles cannot be differentiated from
others who are less-qualified. Suppose, for instance, two safety
decision makers are invited to conduct safety assessment related to
a construction site; one of them is very experienced and holds
highest degree, while the other one is a new-comer with the
minimum degree required. In this case, there lacks a systematic
approach to assign weights pertaining to the merits of the involved
safety experts, thereby overshadowing the rankings of the safety
risks analyzed. Hence, this crucial issue needs to be considered
while developing a new assessment approach.
Regarding the literature that are reviewed above on the studies
focused on the OHS assessment of CWs, the below-mentioned
research gaps are furnished alongside the relative objectives:
(1) How can measure the importance weights related to the
involved safety decision makers? What are the crucial
criteria to be considered in assigning weights to the chosen
decision makers with different profiles? In response to this
unaddressed question, the utilization of Logarithmic Fuzzy-
based Analytical Network Process (LFANP) is considered in
the study.
(2) How could consider the individual biases of the safety deci-
sion makers while conducting OHS risk assessment stage?
This question is taken care of by introducing a new compo-
nent (which is so called the degree of leniency) to the body of
safety risk assessment.
(3) How can extend the parameters of safety risk assessment
related to CWs beyond the commonly used Injury-related
parameters (namely probability and severity)? What would
be all the essential HOTE Risk Parameters (RPs) for assessing
OHS level of involved CWs? By considering all the essential
risk parameters for assessing the CWs’ safety through a
searching algorithm, including the INJ-as well as HOTE-
related parameters, this research is intended to tackle the
raised question.
(4) How could achieve a systematic ranking system for the
identified safety risks, within which the importance weights
of the involved safety decision makers as well as their biases,
are taken into consideration concurrently? Through the
integration of the LFANP with Interval-Valued Pythagorean
Fuzzy Extended Technique for Order of Preference by Simi-
larity to Ideal Solution (IVPFETOPSIS), the mentioned ques-
tion is prudently dealt with in the current research.
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125934
These shortcomings lead to deteriorating the adoption of
further fruitful treatment actions by the concerned safety man-
agers, which results in worsening the OHS in the construction
sector. With this in mind, the current study aims to bridge the
above-stated unaddressed questions effectively. In doing so, a Ho-
listic Occupational Health and Safety Risk Assessment Model
(HOHSRAM) is developed to be as comprehensive as enough in
providing the concerned safety professionals with a conclusive and
precise final ranking of the safety risks threatening the CWs’ lives.
The developed HOHSRAM is based on the amalgamation of Loga-
rithmic Fuzzy-based Analytical Network Process (LFANP) and
Interval-Valued Pythagorean Fuzzy Extended Technique for Order
of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (IVPFETOPSIS). Having
applied the developed HOHSRAM to a case of sustainable con-
struction project, the following contributions have been noted:
(1) Calculating weights related to the safety decision makers
having different backgrounds involved in the study using
logarithmic-fuzzy-based constrained optimization
algorithm.
(2) Taking into consideration the individual biases of the deci-
sion makers throughout the assessment stage.
(3) Determining all the essential RPs to comprehensively assess
the OHS within the construction projects in a systematic way.
(4) Obtaining the final rankings of the identified safety risks
under an interval-valued-Pythagorean fuzzy environment
coupled with grey relational analysis.
In order to further validate the efficacy of the proposed model in
this study against the existing ones, a thorough comparative anal-
ysis was also undertaken. Through the application of other existing
assessment methods to the selected case study, the out-
performance of the model developed in this research was wit-
nessed. It is believed that the model developed in the study could
be utilized by the safety professionals in the construction sector,
which leads to decreasing the OHS-associated injuries in this pre-
carious industry. The rest of this paper is organized as follows.
Section 2 provides the readers with the detailed steps of the
developed model in the study, followed by its application to a real-
life case study in Section 3. Section 4 provides practical implications
of the developed model, while Section 5 elucidates the limitations
intertwined with this study. Section 6 concludes the study, and
ultimately gives an insight regarding the potential areas to be
considered for the future research.
2. Research methodology
In this section, the different steps straddled within the devel-
oped HOHSRAM are elaborated in detail. Prior to providing the
explanations for the developed HOHSRAM, a detailed elaboration
on the identification of essential RPs in the current study has been
provided.
2.1. Identification of essential risk parameters for CWs’ safety risk
assessment
In order to include all the vital RPs that are influential towards
the final safety risk assessment of CWs, a systematic algorithm was
developed as can be observed from Fig. 1. To this purpose, different
filters were specified for the inclusion of all the vital RPs. As the first
step of the developed algorithm, all the related papers to OHS risk/
hazard assessment in all the industries were scrutinized through
comprehensive keywords searching in diverse academic databases.
In doing so, all the vital keywords pertaining to the broad area of
OHS risk assessment were listed, namely safety/risk assessment in
S.R. Mohandes and X. Zhang
Fig. 1. The developed algorithm for obtaining essential RPs towards OHS risk assessment of CW.
workplaces or industries, workers’ hazard/risk assessment, occu-
pational hazard/risk assessment, and so forth. After the detailed list
of relevant keywords had been compiled, then they were used for
searching in diverse databases, comprising Scopus, Science direct,
ASCE, Taylor and Francis, Springer, MDPI, Wiley, and Emerald. Then,
the accredited papers were retained, and accordingly the remaining
papers were stored in the exclusion database repository (i.e. the
application of Filter 1 (F1)). To aid the readers’ understanding
regarding the parameters that are considered beyond the
commonly used ones (i.e. probability and severity), Table 1 sum-
marizes diverse studies used different essential RPs in all the areas
of OHS for conducting risk assessment related to the respective
workers. Next, the essential parameters considered in the past
studies in all areas of OHS were checked carefully. Following this,
those papers considered any risk parameters that are not
commensurate with the nature of construction industry were
stored in the exclusion database (i.e. the application of Filter 1 (F2)).
Once all the related papers containing essential RPs for the
assessment of CWs’ safety level had been retained, any essential
RPs, which had not yet been considered throughout the literature,
were added to the identified ones. Ultimately, all the vital RPs to-
wards the OHS risk assessment of CWs were compiled, and
accordingly can be shown as the following function:
M ¼ S  P  E  D  SFB  SPSC  SPSSC  SBEC
where M is the final magnitude of the respective safety risk, while
S; P; E; D; SFB; SPSC; SPSSC; and SBEC denote the severity, probabil-
ity, exposure, detectability, sensitivity to the failure of barriers,
sensitivity to poor safety climate, sensitivity to poor site safety
condition, and sensitivity to bad environmental condition of the
respective safety risk, respectively. The explanations regarding each
of the RPs considered in the study are provided hereinafter.
2.1.1. Definitions of the defined essential R
In this sub-section, the essential RPs used in the study for
assessing the risks to which the CWs are exposed have been
Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125934
explained in detail as follows.
 Severity (S)
The importance of the severity of risk has widely been consid-
ered by various researchers in the construction sector, in order to
assess the respective risk magnitude occurred to the workers
(Debnath et al., 2016; Mohandes and Zhang, 2019). As mentioned
by Grassi et al. (2009), in order to consider the highest level of
injury, it needs to be assumed that other parameters related to
HOTE are in imperfect or poor conditions. As such, with the aim of
avoiding any possible confusion for the decision makers in the
evaluation process, they need to consider that all the other HOTE-
related parameters determined in this study (i.e. safety barriers,
safety climate, site safety conditions, and environmental condi-
tions) are of bad or poor quality. In this way, the respective decision
maker does not underestimate the magnitude associated with the
severity of the occurred risk. Noteworthy, the respective decision
maker should also take into consideration the impact of the
respective risk severity on the company in terms of its social and
economic aspects. All in all, the respective decision maker needs to
answer the following question: “What is the severity level of the
respective risk if it occurs to the worker, considering the fact that other
HOTE-related parameters are imperfect?”
(1)
 Probability (P)
Numerous researchers in the area of OHS have contemplated the
essence of the possibility of risks occurrence towards better illus-
tration of the final risk magnitude. In this sense, the construction
industry is not an exception to this rule thumb, in which the
probability parameter has been used unanimously in many related
research (Amiri et al., 2017; Koulinas et al., 2019). As stated by
Grassi et al. (2009) and Cheraghi et al. (2019), due to the fact that
companies mostly do not track the risks that have not caused any
injuries to the relative workers thanks to the proper HOTE-related
parameters, it is sagacious to assume that all the HOTE parameters
4
S.R. Mohandes and X. Zhang Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125934

Table 1
Different RPs used in the previous developed OHS risk/hazard assessment models.

Year Aim and area of the study Risk parameters used Reference

2009 Hazard assessment in industrial
plants
2009 Hazard assessment in the
manufacturing industry
2013 Risk assessment in a liquefied
natural gas plant
2013 Hazard assessment in waste
recycling facilities
2014 Hazard assessment for a high-
voltage cell
2014 Risk assessment in the construction
industry
2016 Risk assessment in the construction
industry
2016 Hazard assessment in a factory
2017 Risk assessment in the construction Probability, severity, and site safety conditions
industry
2018 Hazard assessment in
manufacturing sector
2018 Risk assessment in the construction Current level of preventive measures, and severity of injuries
industry
2018 Hazard assessment in the
construction industry
2018 Hazard assessment in the
construction industry
2019 Hazard assessment in gas wellhead Frequency, severity, undetectability, sensitivity to maintenance effectiveness, and sensitivity to failure
facilities
2019 Risk assessment in pipeline
construction projects
2019 Risk assessment in pipeline
construction projects
2019 Risk assessment in building
construction projects
Frequency of occurrence, probable damage derived from the event, contact factor, adequacy of the Mure and Demichela
existing protection measures (2009)
Injury magnitude, occurrence probability, undetectability, sensitivity to non-maintenance execution, Grassi et al. (2009)
and sensitivity to non-PPE utilization
Probability, consequence, and strength of knowledge Aven (2013)
Severity of occurrence, frequency of occurrence, time of exposure, protective measures, preventive Hatami-Marbini et al.
measures, and failure to risk detection (2013)
Likelihood, exposure, degree of harm, fatigue and attention deficit, stress, and technical competence Aras et al. (2014)
Safety climate, safety barriers effectiveness, probability, and severity Pinto (2014)
Accident percentage, accident severity, safety level, and expenses Debnath et al. (2016)
Pure probability, frequency, number of risk sources, protection of machine maintenance, and BIYIKLI and AYDOGAN
detectability (2016)
Amiri et al. (2017)
Likelihood of occurrence, degree of potential harm, frequency of exposure, and number of persons Djapan et al. (2018)
exposed
GUNDUZ and
LAITINEN (2018)
Severity, probability, exposure, and detectability Karasan et al. (2018)
Severity, probability, and exposure Ilbahar et al. (2018)
Cheraghi et al. (2019)
of safety measures
severity, probability, sensitivity to non-utilization of PPE, and undetectability Mete et al. (2019)
severity, probability, and detection Mete (2019)
severity, probability, and detection Khan et al. (2019)

(i.e. which might decrease the possibility of the respective risk
occurrence) are properly deemed or have sound quality. In the light
of this, in order for the respective decision maker to conduct an
intuitive evaluation in the current study, it is assumed that all the
peculiar parameters to HOTE are considered carefully or have good
conditions. To sum up, the respective decision maker needs to
answer the following question: “What is the probability of the
respective risk to occur to the relative workers, considering the fact
that all the HOTE-related parameters are in good conditions?”
 Exposure (E)
This risk parameter has widely been considered as one of the
major components within the famous so-called Fine Kinney hazard
assessment method (Gul and Celik, 2018; Kokangül et al., 2017).
This parameter concerns the duration of a hazardous activity being
exposed to the respective workers (Ilbahar et al., 2018). To tackle
this parameter in the study, the respective DMs needs to answer
the following question: “How long the respective workers are
exposed to the relative hazardous activity? Or What is the duration for
the workers to be involved in the respective hazardous activity until its
completion?”
 Detectability (D)
The parameter detectability was firstly used in the area of me-
chanical and aerospace engineering by Bowles and Pela ez (1995),
which was called as Failure Mode and Effective Analysis (FMEA).
Since then the exploitation of FMEA has grabbed numerous OHS
researchers’ attentions, due to its ability in fulfilling an accurate
OHS risk assessment in all the industries (Kangavari et al., 2015;
Zeng et al., 2010). Apparently, detectability defines the probability
of detection of OHS-associated risks as defined in the literature
(Chung et al., 2020; Mete, 2019). In the current study, the relative
DMs need to handle this parameter by answering the following
question: “To what extent the respective OHS risk will be detected or
What is the probability for detecting the relevant safety risk prior to its
occurrence?“. As one may notice the lower the detectability of a
safety risk is, the riskier the relative risk could be.
 Sensitivity to the Failure of Barriers (SFB)
It is widely asserted that the proper adoption of safety barriers
can significantly reduce the risk impacts on the workers (Lees,
2012; Mure  and Demichela, 2009). With this in mind, the consid-
eration of this crucial RP in the field of OHS risk assessment can be
seen in diverse studies (GUNDUZ and LAITINEN, 2018; Hatami-
Marbini et al., 2013; Pinto, 2014). It is also mentioned that the
effective safety barriers within the domain of construction industry
should contain four aspects, including physical, functional, sym-
bolic, and incorporeal (Pinto, 2014). To handle this parameter in this
study, the respective decision maker should consider all the
aforementioned four cornerstones of an inclusive safety barriers
that corresponds to the relative risks, and accordingly answer the
ensuing question: “To what extent the risk under assessment is sen-
sitive to the failure of safety barriers specified for controlling the
respective risk?“. In other words, the safety decision maker should
consider the impact of the failure of all the safety barriers on the
probability/severity of the respective risk. Conspicuously, the less
sensitive the respective risk to the failure of implemented safety
barrier is, the less risky the pertinent risk would be.

5
S.R. Mohandes and X. Zhang
 Sensitivity to the Poor Safety Climate (SPSC)
As mentioned earlier on, the risk assessment of the workers
involved in any activities are strongly peculiar to the nature of the
industry, in which the related risks endanger the respective
workers (Aras et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2016). Due to the very
peculiar nature of the construction industry, the reason for the
occurrence of many types of the risks are intertwined with poor
environment existing within different levels of the company,
including management, workers, and organization (Auzoult and
Ngueutsa, 2019; Frazier et al., 2013; Iqbal et al., 2019; Reniers
et al., 2011; Silla et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2010). In this regard, Pinto
(2014) considered the safety climate as one of the influential RPs
in assessing the risks to which the CWs are exposed. As mentioned
by Pinto (2014), a sound and proper safety climate within any or-
ganization should take into consideration the followings; safety
rules and procedures, workers’ competence, safe work behavior,
safety environment, work pressure over safety, management
commitment, safety management system, and safety planning. In
light of this, the respective decision maker for handling the
mentioned parameter considered in the current study should
answer the following question: “To what extent the risk under
assessment is sensitive to the poor safety climate implemented in the
organization, considering the fact that all the components of safety
climate are of poor quality?” In other words, the safety decision
maker needs to consider the impact of poor-quality execution of all
the components of safety climate on the probability/severity of the
respective risk. Obviously, if the respective risk is very highly sen-
sitive to the imperfect safety climate within the organization, the
related risk is of higher criticality.
 Sensitivity to Poor Site Safety Conditions (SPSSC)
Another crucial parameter that leads to the occurrence of risks is
poor site safety conditions, on which the respective workers carry
out a specific task (Zheng et al., 2012). The direct impact of site
safety conditions on the probability/severity of risks related to the
CWs can be seen abundantly in the literature (Nahangi et al., 2019;
Rubio-Romero et al., 2013). As can be seen from Table 1, this
parameter was considered towards the better illustration of CWs’
safety risk assessment by Amiri et al. (2017), based on three criteria
that includes material, equipment, and working condition. In the
on-going study, in order for the respective decision maker to
properly handle this parameters, the ensuing question needs to be
answered: “To what extent the respective risk under assessment is
sensitive to the poor site safety conditions, considering the fact that
poor safety conditions refer to poor quality of material, imperfect
equipment, and poor working conditions (such as poor lighting, bad
signaling, lack of enough space, no immediate access to the first aid,
use of defective equipment and tools, use of toxic or flammable ma-
terials, etc.)?“. That is to say, the safety decision maker should es-
timate the impact of poor quality of all the mentioned safety
conditions of the peculiar site on the probability/severity of the
respective risk. As one may notice, the more sensitive the pertinent
risk to the poor site safety conditions, the riskier the respective risk.
 Sensitivity to Bad Environmental Conditions (SBEC)
Bad environmental conditions can significantly deteriorate the
safety and health of the involved construction workers
(Daǧ;deviren and Yüksel, 2008; Mohammadi et al., 2018). In the
current research, bad environmental conditions refer to the time
when the respective workers are required to carry out a task under
bad weather and atmosphere circumstances, including extreme
cold or hot temperature, existence of pollutants, high level of air
6
Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125934
velocity, and high humidity. The respective decision maker needs to
answer the following question: “To what extent the relative risk
under assessment is sensitive to the bad environmental conditions?”
That is to say, the safety decision maker should consider the in-
fluence of bad environmental conditions on the probability/
severity of the respective risk. As it is obvious, the more the
respective risk under assessment is sensitive to the poor environ-
mental conditions, the riskier the relative risk would be.
2.2. HOHSRAM steps
In this sub-section of the research methodology, a meticulous
step-by-step elaboration on the steps involved in the developed
HOHSRAM has been furnished. In order to be succinct, the readers
are referred to the following references to assimilate the in-depth
understanding of the FST concepts used in the current study;
triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) (Sun, 2010), Interval-Valued
Triangular Fuzzy Numbers (IVTFNs) (Mondal, 2016), and Interval-
Valued Pythagorean Fuzzy Numbers (IVPFNs) (Karasan et al.,
2018). As can be observed from Fig. 2, the current study in-
tegrates the LFANP proposed by Tadic et al. (2014) with the IVP-
FETOPSIS developed by Yu et al. (2019), in order to obtain a precise
final ranking of the identified risks through the consideration of
decision makers’ importance weights in sync with the essential RPs
importance weights. Notably, Table 2 summarizes the used nota-
tions. The detailed steps of HOHSRAM are as follows:
Step 1. Identifying the related risks to the respective CWs. As the
first step of the developed framework, a comprehensive review on
the existing literature is needed, comprising reports, papers, arti-
cles and so on, in order to achieve a detailed list of all the risks
jeopardizing the relevant CWs.
Step 2. Forming the decision risk matrix. In this step, the fuzzy
rates of identified risks Ri assigned by the decision maker (DMk Þ
using IVPFNs with respect to the determined RPs (known as RPi )
needs to be obtained, and accordingly called as
X k ¼ ð½mkl mku kl ku
ij ; ij ; ½½nij ; nij Þmn ; k ¼ 1; 2; …; h: The main aim for the
adoption of IVPFNs lies in the fact that it captures more uncertainty
information of decision makers against the other types of FSTs
(Karasan et al., 2018). To assign linguistic scales to the different RDs,
the safety decision makers should refer to Tables 3e10.
Step 3. Calculating the expected decision matrix. At this stage,
the expected decision matrix named as Rh ¼ ðmkij ; nkij Þ mn based on
the respective DMk ’s decision matrix (i.e. Xk ¼
ð½mkl mku kl ku
ij ; ij ; ½½nij ; nij Þmn ; ) needs to be obtained from the following
equations.
mkij ¼ ð1  lk Þmkl ku
ij þ lk mij (2)
nkij ¼ lk nkl ku
ij þ ð1  lk Þmij (3)
where l is the degree of leniency given by the respective DMk . In
the current study, the degree of leniency is introduced to synthesize
the DMs’ biases in the rating process. In order for the DM to
determine the level of his/her leniency, they need to answer the
following question: “Based on the three rules specified for the
determination of your leniency level, to what extent have you been
lenient on the evaluations made between the identified risks with
respect to the determined RPs?“. The relative DM needs to choose a
number to define the level of his/her leniency based on the below-
mentioned three rules:
Rule A: If he/she has been highly-lenient on the evaluations
made, then l is within the range of [0,0.5).
Rule B: If he/she has been medium-lenient on the evaluations
S.R. Mohandes and X. Zhang
Fig. 2. The developed HOHSRAM.
made, then l ¼ 0:5.
Rule C: If he/she has been strict (low-lenient) on the evaluations
made, then l should be selected within the range of (0.5,1].
Step 4. Calculating the DMs’ importance weights. Owing to the
fact that each DM has different profiles (including different degrees,
experience, etc.), there is a need to determine precise weights for
each of the DMs involved at the assessment stage. As such, in the
current study, a structured algorithm is proposed to assign weights
to the involved DMs based on a set of criteria using LFANP. The
major suitability of adopting ANP method is that it allows complex
inter-relationships among decision levels and attributes (Meade
and Sarkis, 1999). This study exploits the LFANP method proposed
by Tadic et al. (2014), in which Logarithmic Fuzzy Preference Pro-
gramming (LFPP) is integrated with the ANP method. It is stated
that the introduction of LFPP to the ANP method leads to producing
highly consistent and more accurate results compared to the other
existing FANP methods (Wang and Chin, 2011). Prior to providing
the steps involved in the proposed LFANP, it is noteworthy to point
out that all the involved steps are suggested to be conducted by a
group of Experts (EXPs), who are unfamiliar with the identities of
the involved DMs. Suppose, for instance, a DM is asked to compare
his profile against the other DMs. In this case, there would be a
considerable possibility for observing biases in the collected re-
sponses. In order to eschew the introduction of this bias to the
responses, there is a need to select a panel of EXPs for conducting
the required steps hereinafter (preferably chosen from another
firm). With the aim of bridging confusion for the readers, an expert
is defined in the current research as a connoisseur who should have
7
Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125934
the hands-on experience peculiar to the construction sites for at
least 5 years, and should also complete at least undergraduate
studies in the domains related to the construction engineering and
management (Hallowell and Gambatese, 2010). In light of the
mentioned explanations, the steps for computing the decision
makers’ weights using the integrated LFANP method are elaborated
as follows.
Step 4 (a). Determining the crucial criteria to be considered for
weighing the merits of invited DMs. As the initial step, the essential
criteria to determine the weights related to the chosen DMs in the
area of construction safety were identified based on the studies
conducted by (Hallowell and Gambatese, 2010; Hardison et al.,
2014; Yazdi, 2018). These criteria are as follows: (1) experience
(E) (i.e. the numbers of working years on construction sites) (2)
degree (D) (i.e. the university degree obtained by the respective DM
in the domains related to construction engineering and manage-
ment), (3) professional qualification (P) (i.e. the professional OHS-
related trainings achieved by the respective DM, such as IOSH,
NEBOSH, OSHA, and etc.), and (4) research profile (R) (the research
article(s) published by the respective DM appertaining to the area
of construction safety management).
Step 4 (b): Structure the LFANP model hierarchically (goal,
criteria, and decision makers). At this stage, the goal, the criteria,
and the numbers of DMs need to be clearly structured (i.e. prefer-
ably in the form of a diagram for the better visualization as can be
seen in Fig. 3).
Step 4(c). Computing local weights of the criteria (wp ). In this
step, the weights of each criterion should be calculated. In doing so,
 Table 2
Notations used in the developed HOHSRAM.

Definition Variable

Decision risk matrix Xk

Expected decision matrix Rh
Membership function of the respective experts’ responses mkij
Non-Membership function of the respective experts’ responses nkij
Leniency degree determined by the expert lk
Weights of the four considered criteria wp
Interdependency weights of four considered criteria wrp
Interdependent weights of four considered criteria wid
Local weights of the involved decision makers wdm
Global weight of the respective decision makers hj
Aggregated global weight of the respective decision makers based on all the experts haggj
Consistency ratio CR
Weights of risk parameters wj
Fuzzy positive ideal solution Aþ
Fuzzy negative ideal solution A
Distance from positive ideal solution Dþ
ij
Distance from negative ideal solution D
ij
Weighted distance from positive ideal solution dþ
i
Weighted distance from negative ideal solution d
i
Positive grey relational coefficient zþ
ij
Negative grey relational grade coefficient z
ij
Positive grey relational grade gþi
Negative grey relational grade gi
Normalized the distance and relational grade Ti
Closeness to positive ideal solution Iiþ
Closeness to negative ideal solution Ii
Optimized ideal reference point G
Closeness coefficient value CCi

Table 3
Linguistic scales for the evaluation of risks with respect to severity.

Linguistic variables Description IVPFNs

Very low severe (VLS) The severity of the respective risk occurred equals first aid ([0.00,0.20],[0.80,0.95])
Low severe (LS) The severity of the respective risk occurred equals minor injury ([0.20,0.30],[0.70,0.80])
Medium low severe (MLS) The severity of the respective risk occurred equals temporary disability ([0.30,0.45],[0.55,0.70])
Medium severe (MS) The severity of the respective risk occurred equals serious injury ([0.45,0.55],[0.40,0.55])
Medium highly severe (MHS) The severity of the respective risk occurred equals permanent disability ([0.55,0.70],[0.25,0.40])
Highly severe (HS) The severity of the respective risk occurred equals fatality ([0.70,0.80],[0.15,0.25])
Very highly severe (VHS) The severity of the respective risk occurred equals many fatalities ([0.80,0.95],[0.00,0.15])

Table 4
Linguistic scales for the evaluation of risks with respect to probability.

Linguistic variables Description IVPFNs

Very low probable (VLP) The possibility of the occurrence of the respective risk is virtually impossible ([0.00,0.20],[0.80,0.95])
Low probable (LP) The possibility of the occurrence of the respective risk is practically impossible ([0.20,0.30],[0.70,0.80])
Medium low probable (MLP) The possibility of the occurrence of the respective risk is conceivable but very unlikely ([0.30,0.45],[0.55,0.70])
Medium probable (MP) The possibility of the occurrence of the respective risk is only remotely possible ([0.45,0.55],[0.40,0.55])
Medium highly probable (MHP) The possibility of the occurrence of the respective risk is unusual but possible ([0.55,0.70],[0.25,0.40])
Highly probable (HP) The possibility of the occurrence of the respective risk is quite possible ([0.70,0.80],[0.15,0.25])
Very highly probable (VHP) The possibility of the occurrence of the respective risk is well expected ([0.80,0.95],[0.00,0.15])

Table 5
Linguistic scales for the evaluation of risks with respect to exposure.

Linguistic variables Description IVPFNs

Very low frequent (VLF) The period of exposure is exceptionally rare (a few times per year) ([0.00,0.20],[0.80,0.95])
Low frequent (LF) The period of exposure is rare (a few times per month) ([0.20,0.30],[0.70,0.80])
Medium low frequent (MLF) The period of exposure is seldom (a few times per week) ([0.30,0.45],[0.55,0.70])
Medium frequent (MF) The period of exposure is occasional (a few times per day) ([0.45,0.55],[0.40,0.55])
Medium highly frequent (MHF) The period of exposure is often (continuous exposure between 2 and 4 h daily) ([0.55,0.70],[0.25,0.40])
Highly frequent (HF) The period of exposure is frequent (continuous exposure between 4 and 6 h daily) ([0.70,0.80],[0.15,0.25])
Very highly frequent (VHF) The period of exposure is prolonged (continuous exposure for an 8-h shift daily) ([0.80,0.95],[0.00,0.15])

8
S.R. Mohandes and X. Zhang Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125934

Table 6
Linguistic scales for the evaluation of risks with respect to detectability.

Linguistic variables Description IVPFNs

Very highly detectable (VHD) The possibility of the detection of the respective risk is very high ([0.00,0.20],[0.80,0.95])
Highly detectable (HD) The possibility of the detection of the respective risk is high ([0.20,0.30],[0.70,0.80])
Medium highly detectable (MHD) The possibility of the detection of the respective risk is medium high ([0.30,0.45],[0.55,0.70])
Medium detectable (MD) The possibility of the detection of the respective risk is medium ([0.45,0.55],[0.40,0.55])
Medium low detectable (MLD) The possibility of the detection of the respective risk is medium low ([0.55,0.70],[0.25,0.40])
Low detectable (LD) The possibility of the detection of the respective risk is low ([0.70,0.80],[0.15,0.25])
Very low detectable (VLD) The possibility of the detection of the respective risk is very low ([0.80,0.95],[0.00,0.15])

Table 7
Linguistic scales for the evaluation of risks with respect to SFB.

Linguistic variables Description IVPFNs

Very low sensitive (VLS) The impact of the failure of all the corresponding safety barriers on the probability/severity of the respective risk is ([0.00,0.20],[0.80,0.95])
very low
Low sensitive (LS) The impact of the failure of all the corresponding safety barriers on the probability/severity of the respective risk is ([0.20,0.30],[0.70,0.80])
low
Medium low sensitive The impact of the failure of all the corresponding safety barriers on the probability/severity of the respective risk is ([0.30,0.45],[0.55,0.70])
(MLS) medium low
Medium sensitive (MS) The impact of the failure of all the corresponding safety barriers on the probability/severity of the respective risk is ([0.45,0.55],[0.40,0.55])
medium
Medium highly sensitive The impact of the failure of all the corresponding safety barriers on the probability/severity of the respective risk is ([0.55,0.70],[0.25,0.40])
(MHS) medium high
Highly sensitive (HS) The impact of the failure of all the corresponding safety barriers on the probability/severity of the respective risk is ([0.70,0.80],[0.15,0.25])
high
Very highly sensitive (VHS) The impact of the failure of all the safety barriers on the probability/severity of the respective risk is very high ([0.80,0.95],[0.00,0.15])

Table 8
Linguistic scales for the evaluation of risks with respect to SPSC.

Linguistic variables Description IVPFNs

Very low sensitive The impact of the poor execution of all the corresponding safety climate components existing within the relative ([0.00,0.20],[0.80,0.95])
(VLS) organization on the probability/severity of the respective risk is very low
Low sensitive (LS) The impact of the poor execution of all the corresponding safety climate components existing within the relative ([0.20,0.30],[0.70,0.80])
organization on the probability/severity of the respective risk is low
Medium low sensitive The impact of the poor execution of all the corresponding safety climate components existing within the relative ([0.30,0.45],[0.55,0.70])
(MLS) organization on the probability/severity of the respective risk is medium low
Medium sensitive The impact of the poor execution of all the corresponding safety climate components existing within the relative ([0.45,0.55],[0.40,0.55])
(MS) organization on the probability/severity of the respective risk is medium
Medium highly The impact of the poor execution of all the corresponding safety climate components existing within the relative ([0.55,0.70],[0.25,0.40])
sensitive (MHS) organization on the probability/severity of the respective risk is medium high
Highly sensitive (HS) The impact of the poor execution of all the corresponding safety climate components existing within the relative ([0.70,0.80],[0.15,0.25])
organization on the probability/severity of the respective risk is high
Very highly sensitive The impact of the poor execution of all the corresponding safety climate components existing within the relative ([0.80,0.95],[0.00,0.15])
(VHS) organization on the probability/severity of the respective risk is very high

Table 9
Linguistic scales for the evaluation of risks with respect to SPSSC.

Linguistic variables Description IVPFNs

Very low sensitive (VLS) The impact of all the poor safety conditions of the relative site under investigation on the probability/severity of the ([0.00,0.20],[0.80,0.95])
respective risk is very low
Low sensitive (LS) The impact of all the poor safety conditions of the relative site under investigation on the probability/severity of the ([0.20,0.30],[0.70,0.80])
respective risk is low
Medium low sensitive The impact of all the poor safety conditions of the relative site under investigation on the probability/severity of the ([0.30,0.45],[0.55,0.70])
(MLS) respective risk is medium low
Medium sensitive (MS) The impact of all the poor safety conditions of the relative site under investigation on the probability/severity of the ([0.45,0.55],[0.40,0.55])
respective risk is medium
Medium highly sensitive The impact of all the poor safety conditions of the relative site under investigation on the probability/severity of the ([0.55,0.70],[0.25,0.40])
(MHS) respective risk is medium high
Highly sensitive (HS) The impact of all the poor safety conditions of the relative site under investigation on the probability/severity of the ([0.70,0.80],[0.15,0.25])
respective risk is high
Very highly sensitive The impact of all the poor safety conditions of the relative site under investigation on the probability/severity of the ([0.80,0.95],[0.00,0.15])
(VHS) respective risk is very high

9
S.R. Mohandes and X. Zhang Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125934

Table 10
Linguistic scales for the evaluation of risks with respect to SBEC.

Linguistic variables Description IVPFNs

Very low sensitive (VLS) The impact of bad environmental conditions on the probability/severity of the respective risk is very low ([0.00,0.20],[0.80,0.95])
Low sensitive (LS) The impact of bad environmental conditions on the probability/severity of the respective risk is low ([0.20,0.30],[0.70,0.80])
Medium low sensitive (MLS) The impact of bad environmental conditions on the probability/severity of the respective risk is medium low ([0.30,0.45],[0.55,0.70])
Medium sensitive (MS) The impact of bad environmental conditions on the probability/severity of the respective risk is medium ([0.45,0.55],[0.40,0.55])
Medium highly sensitive (MHS) The impact of bad environmental conditions on the probability/severity of the respective risk is medium high ([0.55,0.70],[0.25,0.40])
Highly sensitive (HS) The impact of bad environmental conditions on the probability/severity of the respective risk is high ([0.70,0.80],[0.15,0.25])
Very highly sensitive (VHS) The impact of bad environmental conditions on the probability/severity of the respective risk is very high ([0.80,0.95],[0.00,0.15])

Fig. 3. The proposed LFANP hierarchy for measuring the DMs’ importance weights.

the chosen panel of EXPs need to be asked to conduct pair-wise
comparisons between the criteria in terms of their importance
using fuzzy linguistic variables (refer to Table 11). Due to sake of
succinctness, the steps involved in computing the relative weights
are elaborated in Appendix A.
Step 4 (d). Computing the relative importance weights of the
criteria (known as wrp ). At this stage, the existing interdependency
among the criteria need to be taken into account. In doing so, the
chosen EXPs need to determine the relationships existing between
the four criteria, and subsequently determine the extent of such
dependencies using variables listed in Table 11. In other words, they
need to answer the following question: “Which of the four criteria
considered in the study is/are dependent on the others? and What is
the extent of such dependency using pairwise comparisons between
their levels of importance?” Needless to say, one criterion may not be
dependent on any criteria, or might be dependent on more than
one criterion. After forming the pair-wise comparisons matrix be-
tween the chosen four criteria, the steps elaborated in Appendix A
need to be followed to compute wrp of the criteria.
Step 4 (e). Calculating the interdependent weights of criteria.
After forming the pair-wise comparisons matrix between the
chosen four criteria, the relative interdependent weights can be
Table 11
Linguistic scales for LFANP.
computed as follow:
wid ¼ wp  A (4)
where wid , wp , and A denote the interdependent weights of the
criteria, local weights of the criteria, and the dependence matrix
containing the relative weights of criteria computed in the previous
step, respectively.
Step 4 (f). Computing local weights of the involved DMs (). In
this step, the respective EXP needs to conduct pair-wise compari-
sons between the involved DMs with regard to the four criteria. To
handle this step, the relative EXP should answer the following
question: Based on the profiles of the chosen DMs, what is the priority
of DMs as compared to each other with respect to the four criteria
separately? Needless to say, the mentioned comparisons need to be
carried out pair-wisely between the DMs with respect to the four
criteria using variables listed in Table 11. Once the pertinent matrix
has been created, the steps explained in Appendix A should be
followed to calculate the relative weights.
Step 4 (g). Calculating the global weights of DMs. As the final
stage of the proposed LFANP, the following equation needs to be
taken into consideration for obtaining the final weights of the
respective DMs.

Linguistic scales TFNs Reciprocal TFNs

hj ¼ wid  wdm (5)

Just equally important (JE) (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1)

where hj , wid , and wdm denote respectively the global weight
Very weakly more important (VW) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (2/3, 1, 2)
Weakly more important (WI) (1, 3/2, 2) (1/2, 2/3, 1) related to the respective DM, the interdependent weights of the
Moderately more important (MI) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (2/5,1/2, 2/3) criteria, and the local weighs related to the DMs. As one may
Highly more important (HI) (2, 5/2, 3) (1/3, 2/5, 1/2) discern, all the calculated weights obtained from the involved EXPs
Extremely more important (EM) (5/2, 3, 7/2) (2/7, 1/3, 2/5)
should be aggregated as follow.
10
S.R. Mohandes and X. Zhang Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125934

     
1 XK Aþ ¼ mþ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ
1 ; n1 ; p1 ; m2 ; n2 ; p2 ; …; mn ; nn ; pn ; for j ¼ 1; …; n
haggj ¼ h; for j ¼ 1; 2; …; n; and i ¼ 1; 2; …; K (6)
K i¼1 j (14)

     
where hj is the global weight of jth DM obtained from kth EXP, and j A ¼ m        
1 ; n1 ; p1 ; m2 ; n2 ; p2 ; …; mn ; nn ; pn ; for j ¼ 1; …; n
and k denote the number of DMs and EXPs, respectively.
(15)
Step 4 (h). Calculating the Consistency Ratio (CR). Ultimately,
the CR needs to be checked as follow: qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 2
where mþj
¼ maxfmij g, nþ
j
¼ maxfnij g, pþ j
¼ 1  mþ ij
 nþ ij
, m
j ¼
CR ¼ CI=RI (7) qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  
minfmij g, nj ¼ minfnij g, pj ¼ 1  mij 2  nij 2 . 

where CI is the Consistency Index and is calculated as follow: Step 8. Creating the distance matrix. The distance Dij between
the ideal solution value and each comparison value need to be
lmax  n computed as follows:
CI ¼ (8)
n1
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
n 2  2  2 o
where n is the number of elements of matrix A, while lmax and RI Dþ
ij ¼ mij  mþ j
þ nij  nþ j
þ pij  pþ j
(16)
are the maximum eigen-value and random-indices respectively,
and can be obtained from (Najib and Abdullah, 2013). rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Step 4 (i). Accepting or rejecting the responses. The CR is used to n 2  2  2 o
directly calculate the consistency of the pair-wise comparisons
D
ij ¼ mij  m j
þ nij  n j
þ pij  p j
(17)
accomplished by the selected EXPs. It is notable to mention that the
Afterwards, the weighted distances from each risk to the PIS and
CIs obtained from each expert are related to: wrp , wp , and wdm . The
the NIS can be calculated using the following equations:
calculated CIs for each of the mentioned three scenarios should be
less than 0.10, otherwise it can be asserted that the responses
X
n
collected are not acceptable, and accordingly they need to be dþ
i
¼ wagg j Dþ
ij (18)
conducted again. j¼1
Step 5. Forming the group aggregated decision matrix. Based on
all decision makers’ expected decision matrix Rh ¼ ðmkij ; nkij Þ mn , the X
n
group aggregated decision matrix (i.e. defined as R ¼ d
i ¼ wagg j D
ij (19)
ðmij ; nij ; pij Þmn ) can be calculated by the following equation: j¼1

Step 9. Using the following equations, the grey relational co-

R ¼ h1  R1 4 h2  R2 4 ::::::::: 4 hh  Rh efficients can be calculated.
(rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi )
Yh  
2 hk Yh k hk
¼ 1 1  mij ; k¼1 nij min minDþ þ
k
ij þ r max maxDij
k¼1
(9)
i j i j
zþ ¼ (20)
ij
Dþ þ
ij þ r max maxDij
where h1 ; …; hh are the aggregated weights related to the involved i j
DMs. It is to be pointed out that the hesitation degree of every
element of Rh ¼ ðmkij ; nkij Þmn can be calculated as below: min minD 
ij þ r max maxDij
i j i j
z ¼ (21)
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ij
D 
ij þ r max maxDij
pij ¼ 1  m2ij  n2ij (10) i j

Following the equations defined above, the grey relational

Step 6. Computing the pertinent weights wj to the essential RPs.
grades can be calculated by the following equations:
To this purpose, firstly, the entropy measure of each parameter ej
should be calculated as can be seen from Eq. (11). Following this,
1X n
þ
the divergence dj of each parameter needs to be calculated as gþ
i ¼ wagg j zij (22)
n j¼1
shown in Eq. (12), based on which the normalized weights wj could
be obtained as shown in Eq. (13).

m h         1X n

1 X g
i ¼ wagg j zij (23)
ej ¼  m2ij ln m2ij þ n2ij ln n2ij  1  p2ij ln 1  p2ij n j¼1
m ln 2 i¼1
i Step 10. Normalizing the distance and relational grade using the
 p2ij ln 2 (11)
ensuing equation:

dj ¼ 1  ej ; j ¼ 1; 2; …; 8 (12) Ti ¼ ti =maxðti Þ (24)

where. ti ¼ dþi
; d þ  þ  þ 
i ; gi ; gi ; Ti ¼ Di ; Di ; Yi ; Yi :
dj
wj ¼ P8 ; j ¼ 1; 2; …; 8 (13) Step 11. Obtaining the integrated values of distance and grey
j¼1 dj relational grade as follows:

Step 7. Calculating the Positive Ideal Solution (PIS) and the Iiþ ¼ aD þ
i þ byi ; i ¼ 1; 2; …; m (25)
Negative Ideal Solution (NIS). In this step, the PIS Aþ and NIS A
need to be calculated as follows.
11
S.R. Mohandes and X. Zhang Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125934

Table 12
Identified risks from literature and interviews.

No. Risks (explanation)

RS1 Fall from heights (when working on suspended platforms or when the maintenance operations are conducted at heights)
RS2 Slips, trips and falls on the same floor (while getting in or out of the plant, or working on wet ground)
RS3 Struck by falling loads (results from the collapse of swiveling loads)
RS4 Crushed by falling crane-related objects (caused by the collapse of crane parts, including hook, cable, or the counterweight)
RS5 Smashed by the tower crane tip-over (results from the collapse of ballasts, jib or tower mast)
RS6 Caught in/between (entrapment or crushing between moving or rotating structures, such as between swinging counterweight and crane structure)
RS7 Collision with moving objects (where two or more cranes are positioned at the same or different workplaces)
RS8 Punctured (caused by sharp instruments and tools during maintenance work)
RS9 Being electrocuted (stems from defective installations and equipment, or contact of metal booms of the crane, or chains with power lines)
RS10 Musculoskeletal disorders (results from lifting and moving heavy loads)
RS11 Burns (stems from contact with hot exhaust pipes or exhaust gases)
RS12 Fire (caused by heating equipment, smoking, the existence of flammable objects, or sparks from faulty electric equipment)
RS13 Struck by lightning (caused by the blown storm)
RS14 Mental perturbation (caused by the exposure to noise and vibrations from the engine)
RS15 Dermatitis (due to the exposure to lubricating oils during maintenance work)
RS16 Repetitive strain injury (due to the continuous repetitive movements of different parts of body)
RS17 Fatigue (caused by working for a long period of time, such as working at nights and weekends)
RS18 Heat stroke (due to working in extreme hot weather)
RS19 Hypertension (caused by drastic increase in the blood pressure due to working in hot weather for a long duration)

3.1. Description of the case study

Ii ¼ aDþ
i
þ by
i ; i ¼ 1; 2; …; m
where Iiþ and Ii denotes closeness of the Ri to positive and negative
solution respectively, and a þ b ¼ 1. It is to be mentioned that the
same value is usually considered for a and b (a ¼ b ¼ 0:5Þ.
Step 12. Calculating the optimized ideal reference point as
below:
    
G ¼ ðgþ ; g  Þ ¼ max Iiþ ; min Ii ; i ¼ 1; 2; …; m
Step 13. Calculating the distance from each risk to point G as
follow:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
þ 2  
CCi ¼ Ii  gþ þ I i g
 2
Step 14. Ranking the identified risks in increasing order. In other
words, the lower the final weights CCi , the riskier the relative risk.
Step 15. Conducting sensitivity analysis. As mentioned by Yu
et al. (2019), in order to check the consistency of the involved
DMs’ responses using IVPFETOPSIS approach, parameters a and b
need to be adjusted within the range of [0,1]. If the obtained
rankings using different ranges of adjusting parameters were
consistent, then the obtained ranking (i.e. based on a ¼ b ¼ 0:5)
could be finalized. Otherwise, the relative DMs need to be informed
regarding the inconsistency of the obtained results, and accordingly
they need to fill out the questionnaire again. Notably, due to having
a model that is based on equal integration of GRA and TOPSIS, 0.5
was considered for such adjusting variables. To make it clearer, if
a ¼ 0, b ¼ 1, single GRA is used to evaluate risks, while when a ¼ 1,
b ¼ 0, single TOPSIS is used to evaluate risks.
3. Application of the proposed HOHSRAM
In order to demonstrate the practicability of any developed
models, there is a need to apply the models developed to a case
study (either real-life or hypothetical) as mentioned by numerous
researchers (Celik et al., 2012; Gul and Guneri, 2016;
Mohammadfam et al., 2016; Ribas et al., 2019; Sui et al., 2020; Zhao
et al., 2016). Considering this, in this section, the developed
HOHSRAM is applied to a case of real-life sustainable construction
project in a stepwise manner, along with conducting a compre-
hensive comparative analysis between the results obtained from
the proposed HOHSRAM and other safety assessment methods.
(26)
The use of sustainable-based technologies has rapidly been
taken up by project stakeholders, in order not only to contribute
positively to the environment, but also to improve the residents’
comfort. To this purpose, the buildings to be conferred upon the
relative green certificates need to enjoy some sustainable features,
for which new construction strategies should be considered. As a
result, the workers involved in such construction tasks are exposed
(27) to new types of hazards that are not known in traditional projects
(Dewlaney et al., 2012). To take Hong Kong as an example, with the
aim of minimizing the CO2 emissions emitted from in-situ concrete
constructions in the traditional projects, the use of prefabrication
systems for assembling the building’s slabs (such as walls, columns,
(28) beams, claddings, etc.) has been introduced to the relative green
building assessment tool (HKG, 2004). With this in mind, the
paradigm shift towards the adoption of prefabricated panels has
increased the need for using tower cranes in sustainable con-
struction projects, due to their abilities in lifting heavy panels
during the assembly or disassembly procedures. Considering this,
there is a strong necessity to precisely assess the risks related to the
workers working with the tower cranes in the sustainable con-
struction projects. As such, the chosen case study for the ongoing
research is the case of tower crane workers being involved in the
operation phases of sustainable construction project. To show the
feasibility of the proposed HOHSRAM, two construction firms-
whose establishment date back to approximately 20 years ago
and completed several sustainable construction projects in Hong
Kong-were taken into consideration. To this purpose, a panel of
seven qualified and experienced members was used, which in-
cludes 3 EXPs (for measuring the importance weights of DMs)
together with four DMs (for assessing the OHS of crew members) as
follows. EXP1 and EXP2 were both project managers who had
above 15 years of experience and held undergraduate degree in
civil engineering, while EXP3 was a site supervisor who had around
10 years of relative experience with M.Sc. in construction man-
agement. DM1 was a principal contractor holding B.Sc. in civil en-
gineering with 17 years of relative experience to the relative
operations, while DM2 was a site engineer with Ph.D. in civil en-
gineering with 11 years of experience. DM3 had Ph.D. in con-
struction management with 7 working years as well as holding
NEBOSH certificate and one published research article. Ultimately,
DM4 was a safety inspector who had 12 years of relative experience
12
S.R. Mohandes and X. Zhang Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125934

Table 13
The expected decision matrix related to DM1 (l ¼ 0:5Þ

S P E D SFB SPSC SPSSC SBEC

RS1 (0.875,0.075) (0.375,0.625) (0.5,0.475) (0.25, 0.75) (0.875,0.075) (0.875,0.075) (0.75, 0.2) (0.1,0.875)
RS2 (0.375,0.625) (0.25,0.75) (0.5,0.475) (0.375,0.625) (0.75,0.2) (0.5,0.475) (0.875,0.075) (0.1,0.875)
RS3 (0.875,0.075) (0.75, 0.2) (0.75, 0.2) (0.25, 0.75) (0.875,0.075) (0.75,0.2) (0.875,0.075) (0.1,0.875)
RS4 (0.875,0.075) (0.75, 0.2) (0.875,0.075) (0.375,0.625) (0.875,0.075) (0.75, 0.2) (0.875,0.075) (0.1,0.875)
RS5 (0.875,0.075) (0.5,0.475) (0.875,0.075) (0.75,0.2) (0.875,0.075) (0.75,0.2) (0.875,0.075) (0.1,0.875)
RS6 (0.5,0.475) (0.5,0.475) (0.25,0.75) (0.25,0.75) (0.5,0.475) (0.625,0.325) (0.5,0.475) (0.1,0.875)
RS7 (0.5,0.475) (0.25,0.75) (0.1,0.875) (0.75, 0.2) (0.25,0.75) (0.5,0.475) (0.75, 0.2) (0.1,0.875)
RS8 (0.375,0.625) (0.1,0.875) (0.375,0.625) (0.75, 0.2) (0.25, 0.75) (0.5,0.475) (0.5,0.475) (0.1,0.875)
RS9 (0.875,0.075) (0.75, 0.2) (0.625,0.325) (0.625,0.325) (0.875,0.075) (0.875,0.075) (0.75,0.2) (0.1,0.875)
RS10 (0.625,0.325) (0.625,0.325) (0.625,0.325) (0.875,0.075) (0.5,0.475) (0.625,0.325) (0.1,0.875) (0.1,0.875)
RS11 (0.5,0.475) (0.375,0.625) (0.1,0.875) (0.25, 0.75) (0.75, 0.2) (0.75,0.2) (0.25, 0.75) (0.1,0.875)
RS12 (0.875,0.075) (0.1,0.875) (0.25, 0.75) (0.5,0.475) (0.75,0.2) (0.875,0.075) (0.25,0.75) (0.5,0.475)
RS13 (0.875,0.075) (0.1,0.875) (0.25, 0.75) (0.25, 0.75) (0.25,0.75) (0.25, 0.75) (0.25,0.75) (0.875,0.075)
RS14 (0.625,0.325) (0.25, 0.75) (0.75, 0.2) (0.875,0.075) (0.25, 0.75) (0.5,0.475) (0.25, 0.75) (0.5,0.475)
RS15 (0.5,0.475) (0.375,0.625) (0.375,0.625) (0.75, 0.2) (0.75, 0.2) (0.75,0.2) (0.25,0.75) (0.5,0.475)
RS16 (0.5,0.475) (0.625,0.325) (0.75,0.2) (0.75, 0.2) (0.5,0.475) (0.625,0.325) (0.25, 0.75) (0.1,0.875)
RS17 (0.25, 0.75) (0.375,0.625) (0.25, 0.75) (0.875,0.075) (0.5,0.475) (0.5,0.475) (0.25, 0.75) (0.75, 0.2)
RS18 (0.5,0.475) (0.375,0.625) (0.75, 0.2) (0.25, 0.75) (0.5,0.475) (0.5,0.475) (0.25, 0.75) (0.875,0.075)
RS19 (0.375,0.625) (0.375,0.625) (0.75,0.2) (0.25,0.75) (0.5,0.475) (0.5,0.475) (0.25, 0.75) (0.875,0.075)

Table 14
Local weights of criteria obtained from EXP1.

Criteria E D P R w*ip

E JE MI MI VW 0.3360
D MI1 JE JE VW1 0.1828
P MI1 JE JE VW 0.1828
R VW1 VW VW1 JE 0.2983

CR ¼ 0.026.

Table 15
Interdependent weighs (w*irp ) of criteria obtained from EXP1.

Criteria E D P R Fig. 4. The dependence relationships among criteria determined by the EXP1.
E 1.00 0.4999 0.4177 0.3999
D 0.4869 1.00 0.2412 0.3999
P 0.2005 0.1666 1.00 0.2 Table 17
R 0.3125 0.3333 0.341 1.00 Global weights of DMs obtained from EXP1 and all the involved EXPs.

CR ¼ 0.036. Criteria wid DMs hj hagg j

E 0.6231 DM1 0.2133 0.2166

D 0.5099 DM2 0.2142 0.2112
Table 16 P 0.3404 DM3 0.2746 0.2807
Local weights of decision makers ðw*idm ) obtained from EXP1. R 0.5266 DM4 0.2978 0.2915
CR 0.022
DMs E D P R

DM1 0.3697 0.1091 0.1428 0.1543

DM2 0.2334 0.3479 0.1428 0.1543
3.2. Results of the HOHSRAM application to the case study
DM3 0.1430 0.3479 0.3571 0.3272
DM4 0.2628 0.1948 0.3571 0.3639
In this section, the step-by-step application of the HOHSRAM to
CR ¼ 0.012.
the chosen case study is provided as follows. Prior to that, the
readers are referred to following explanations to grasp better un-
and held M.Sc. in construction management as well as obtained derstanding of the HOHSRAM application. To begin with, there are
OSHA certificate and two published research papers. Note that in four decision matrices, each of which has nineteen rows and eight
order to avoid bias towards assigning appropriate weights to the columns using the proposed IVPFETOPSIS method (since four DMs
involved DMs in the study, the involved EXPs and DMs were involved in this study, and there are respectively nineteen and eight
selected from two different firms. For the sake of anonymity, the risks and parameters existing in the case study under investiga-
companies’ names as well as the EXPs’ and DMs’ identities involved tion). After obtaining the expected decision matrix which is based
in the study are not revealed. On top of all these, it is worth pointing on consideration of leniency degree (that equals to four matrices
out that all the EXPs and DMs involved in the study had pilot tested since we have four decision makers), the obtained results are in-
all the designed questionnaires, prior to having them distributed. tegrated with those of decision makers’ importance weights (that is
This is a very crucial step in order to be ensured that the developed based on the aggregation of three experts’ responses using the
model in the study will prosperously achieve its predefined proposed LFANP algorithm).
objectives. Step 1. Initially, the developed model starts from the identifi-
cation of the risks related to the CWs. To this purpose, a very close

13
S.R. Mohandes and X. Zhang Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125934

scrutiny into the past research undertaken in the area of tower
cranes was carried out, including the journal papers, conference
papers, reports, guidelines, and so forth (Cho et al., 2017; Hong
Kong Construction Industry Council, 2010; Hong Kong
Occupational Health and Safety Branch, 2011; Queensland
Government, 2017; Shepherd et al., 2000; Shin, 2015). Once the
list of risks had been compiled, the DMs were then asked to add (or
remove) any safety risks that are only potential to threaten the
crane workers working in sustainable construction projects. The
identified risks that were considered to be threatening to the
respective workers during the assembly, operation, and disas-
sembly processes of cranes in the sustainable construction projects
are tabulated in Table 12.
(2019), Amiri et al. (2017), Dabbagh and Yousefi (2019), and
Rashid et al. (2014). Regarding the calculation of the involved DMs’
importance weights using LFANP, only the pairwise comparisons
made by the EXP1 are elaborated due to the sake of brevity (see
Tables 14e16 and Fig. 4). Table 17 summarizes the aggregated
weights obtained from the EXP1 and all the involved EXPs using
Eqs. (A1-A11) and Eqs. (4)e(6), as well as the obtained CRs, using
Eqs. (7) and (8) which were fed to the IVPFETOPSIS later on.
Step 5. Using Eqs. (9) and (10), the group aggregated decision
matrix is formed (see Table 18).
Step 6. Table 19 illustrates the calculated weights related to the
considered RPs using Eqs. 11e13.
Step 7. The PIS and NIS are obtained as follows (using Eqs. (14)

8 9
< ð0:317; 0:691; 0:649Þ; ð0:178; 0:823; 0:537Þ; ð0:179; 0:819; 0:544Þ; =
A ¼ ð0:196; 0:803; 0:561Þ; ð0:262; 0:738; 0:621Þ; ð0:262; 0:738; 0:621Þ;
: ;
ð0:262; 0:747; 0:610Þ; ð0:178; 0:823; 0:537Þ

8 9
< ð0:896; 0:047; 0:440Þ; ð0:743; 0:207; 0:636Þ; ð0:896; 0:047; 0:440Þ; =
þ
A ¼ ð0:823; 0:123; 0:554Þ; ð0:896; 0:047; 0:440Þ; ð0:896; 0:047; 0:440Þ;
: ;
ð0:896; 0:047; 0:440Þ; ð0:874; 0:063; 0:481Þ

Steps 2 and 3. Based on the involved DMs’ responses in the and (15)):
study, the decision risk matrix together with the expected decision
matrix were formed using Eqs. (2) and (3). Due to the limitation of
the length of the paper, only the obtained results from the expected Steps 8 and 9. Tables 20e23 illustrate the distances ( Dþ
ij and
matrix are reported (see Table 13). Notably, Appendix B summa- D the weighted distances ðdþ and d
ij ), i i Þ; the grey relational co-
rizes the existing safety barriers for controlling the relative risks
related to the tower crane workers, which is based on interviewing efficients (zþ  þ 
ij and zij Þ, and the grey relational grades (yi and yi ),

the relative DMs to determine the appropriate measures with respectively using Eqs. 16e23.
respect to each identified safety risk. Steps 10 and 11. The integrated values of distance and grey
Step 4. The selected EXPs had been asked to conduct the relational grade through Eqs. 24e26 are as follows:

0:864; 0:719; 1:000; 0:993; 0:941; 0:577; 0:595; 0:561; 0:960; 0:681; 0:560; 0:775;
Iiþ ¼ ;
0:656; 0:612; 0:653; 0:659; 0:638; 0:707; 0:740

0:596; 0:662; 0:582; 0:562; 0:6157; 0:773; 0:893; 0:915; 0:535; 0:781; 0:953; 0:691;
Ii ¼
1:000; 0:822; 0:730; 0:774; 0:851; 0:719; 0:744

involved steps for measuring the importance weights of the

respective DMs, who conducted the assessment stage later on. It is
notable to assert that the opted size of panel members for the
current study, which includes three EXPs for utilizing LFANP along
with four DMs for undertaking IVPFETOPSIS, are quite provident as
compared to the diverse studies used MCDM-based methods, such
as the studies conducted by Grassi et al. (2009), Cheraghi et al.
Step 12. Through Eq. (27), the optimized ideal reference point G
is obtained as (0.990,0.427).
Step 13 and 14. Using Eq. (28), the distance from each risk to the
point G is calculated as below:

0:162; 0:361; 0:022; 0:011; 0:089; 0:599; 0:682; 0:752; 0:010; 0:489; 0:764;
CCi ¼
0:325; 0:727; 0:584; 0:482; 0:504; 0:603; 0:405; 0:402

14
S.R. Mohandes and X. Zhang Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125934
Table 19
(0.402,0.597,0.693)
(0.402,0.597,0.693)
(0.178,0.823,0.537)
(0.178,0.823,0.537)
(0.178,0.823,0.537)

(0.402,0.597,0.693)
(0.178,0.823,0.537)
(0.178,0.823,0.537)
(0.458,0.523,0.717)
(0.874,0.062,0.481)
(0.481,0.495,0.722)
(0.458,0.523,0.717)
(0.178,0.823,0.537)

(0.874,0.062,0.481)
(0.874,0.062,0.481)

Obtained weights pertaining to the considered RPs.

(402,0.597,0.693)
(402,0.597,0.693)

(178,0.823,0.537)

(733,0.216,0.644)

S P E D SFB SPSC SPSSC SBEC

ej 0.6840 0.8095 0.6549 0.7033 0.6369 0.7069 0.6343 0.6584
dj 0.3159 0.1904 0.3450 0.2966 0.3630 0.2930 0.3656 0.3415
SBEC

wj 0.1258 0.0758 0.1373 0.1181 0.1445 0.1166 0.1455 0.1360

(0.833,0.0948,0.544)
(0.762,0.187,0.619)
(0.896,0.047,0.440)
(0.896,0.047,0.440)
(0.896,0.047,0.440)
(0.855,0.093,0.509)
(0.482,0.499,0.719)
(0.705,0.246,0.664)
(0.482,0.499,0.719)

(0.274,0.747,0.604)
(0.317,0.691,0.649)
(0.317,0.691,0.649)
(0.262,0.738,0.621)
(0.262,0.738,0.621)
(0.317,0.691,0.649)
(0.317,0.691,0.649)
(0.262,0.738,0.621)
(0.262,0.738,0.621)
(0.262,0.738,0.621)

Alternatively, the obtained ranking of the risks in the order of

magnitude are as follows; RS9> RS4> RS3> RS5> RS1> RS12> RS2>
RS19> RS18> RS15> RS10> RS16> RS14> RS6> RS17> RS7> RS13>
RS8> RS11.
SPSSC

Step 15. Based on the different values for the adjusting param-
eters a and b within the range of [0,1], eleven scenarios were
conducted (see Table 24). Fig. 5 shows the experimental results
(0.512075,0.456,0.727)
(0.512075,0.456,0.727)

under different scenarios, indicating the existence of good consis-

(0.643,0.306,0.7012)

(0.896,0.0471,0.440)

(0.896,0.0471,0.440)
(0.896,0.047,0.440)
(0.620,0.347,0.702)
(0.833,0.094,0.544)
(0.762,0.187,0.619)
(0.762,0.187,0.619)

(0.566,0.401,0.719)
(0.566,0.401,0.719)

(0.643,0.306,0.701)
(0.705,0.246,0.664)

(0.262,0.738,0.621)
(0.620,0.347,0.702)
(0.705,0.246,0.664)

(0.620,0.347,0.702)

tency among the involved DMs’ responses.

(0.643,0.306,0.70)

Furthermore, in order to check the extent to which the obtained

rankings of the risks are sensitive to the weights of DMs, another
sensitivity analysis was undertaken, as mentioned in (Gul et al.,
SPSC

2019; Gul and Guneri, 2016; Zhang and Mohandes, 2020). To this
end, four different SCs were considered, in which the weights of
DMs were altered to observe the variations in the obtained rank-
ings (see Table 25). Fig. 6 shows the prioritized risks in different
(0.262,0.738258,0.621)
(0.896,0.0471,0.440)

scenarios considered. As can be inferred, the rankings obtained are

(0.896,0.047,0.440)
(0.794,0.153,0.587)
(0.896,0.047,0.440)
(0.896,0.047,0.440)
(0.896,0.047,0.440)
(0.512,0.456,0.727)
(0.262,0.738,0.621)
(0.291,0.711,0.639)

(0.512,0.456,0.727)
(0.762,0.187,0.619)
(0.762,0.187,0.619)

(0.262,0.738,0.621)
(0.762,0.187,0.619)
(0.512,0.456,0.727)
(0.477,0.501,0.721)
(0.540,0.423,0.726)
(0.540,0.423,0.726)

quite sensitive to the weights of DMs. For instance, while RS9 in the
current study was ranked in the first spot, RS4 was witnessed to be
the most threatening risk in the SC1. As another example, the
second and third most perilous risks are different in all the sce-
SFB

narios considered. Hence, it can be concluded that the rankings of

safety risks are quite correlated with the weights assigned to DMs
involved in the assessment step; thus, there is a need to assign
(0.351,0.655,0.668)
(0.569,0.402,0.716)
(0.232,0.768,0.596)
(0.319,0.684,0.655)
(0.548,0.462,0.696)
(0.487,0.494,0.719)
(0.762,0.187,0.619)
(0.762,0.187,0.619)
(0.606,0.353,0.712)
(0.823,0.124,0.554)
(0.196,0.803,0.561)
(0.689,0.269,0.672)
(0.262,0.738,0.621)
(0.691,0.281,0.664)
(0.762,0.187,0.619)
(0.762,0.187,0.619)
(0.823,0.124,0.554)
(0.651,0.325,0.685)
(0.806,0.123,0.578)

precise weights to the DMs, as proposed in the developed HOSRAM.

3.3. Comparative study
D

In order to show the robustness and superiority of the devel-

oped HOHSRAM in the study against the other safety risk assess-
ment approaches, a comprehensive comparative analysis was
(0.553,0.408,0.726)
(0.389,0.609,0.690)
(0.863,0.071,0.499)
(0.896,0.047,0.440)
(0.896,0.047,0.440)
(0.487,0.494,0.719)
(0.217,0.787,0.576)
(0.275,0.732,0.622)
(0.610,0.349,0.710)
(0.720,0.229,0.654)
(0.179,0.819,0.544)
(0.487,0.494,0.719)
(0.232,0.768,0.596)
(0.762,0.187,0.619)
(0.319,0.684,0.655)
(0.762,0.187,0.619)
(0.262,0.738,0.621)
(0.762,0.187,0.619)
(0.762,0.187,0.619)

conducted. To this purpose, the rankings obtained from the appli-

cation of the developed model to a case of sustainable construction
project was compared against the following methods (see Fig. 7):
a) Traditional safety assessment approach: The common prac-
E

tical risk assessment approach that is based on probability

and severity parameters using raw numbers as proposed by
(0.457,0.525,0.717)
(0.367,0.632,0.681)
(0.743,0.206,0.636)
(0.695,0.258,0.670)
(0.458,0.523,0.717)
(0.512,0.456,0.727)
(0.367,0.632,0.681)
(0.300,0.714,0.631)
(0.733,0.216,0.644)
(0.623,0.330,0.708)
(0.432,0.555,0.710)
(0.178,0.823,0.537)
(0.178,0.823,0.537)
(0.262,0.738,0.621)
(0.432,0.555,0.710)
(0.623,0.330,0.708)
(0.330,0.672,0.661)
(0.315,0.694,0.647)
(0.315,0.694,0.647)
Fardhosseini et al.(2015). To this end, the linguistic variables
assigned to the “probability” and “severity” parameters were
replaced with raw numbers, within the range of [1,7]. In
other words, “very low” and “very high” was replaced with 1
and 7, respectively.
The group aggregated decision risk matrix.

b) Fine Kinney method: The common occupational risk

assessment method that is based on the consideration of
three parameters using raw numbers, namely exposure,
(0.896,0.047,0.440)
(0.501,0.488,0.713)
(0.896,0.047,0.440)
(0.896,0.047,0.440)
(0.896,0.047,0.440)
(0.566,0.401,0.719)
(0.512,0.456,0.727)
(0.432,0.555,0.710)
(0.896,0.047,0.440)
(0.603,0.348,0.717)
(0.512,0.456,0.727)
(0.896,0.047,0.440)
(0.896,0.047,0.440)
(0.581,0.381,0.718)
(0.512,0.456,0.727)
(0.512,0.456,0.727)
(0.317,0.691,0.649)
(0.553,0.408,0.726)
(0.393,0.607,0.690)
severity, and probability (Kokangül et al., 2017). In doing so,
the numerical values of 1 and 7 were replaced with “very
low” and “very high” linguistic scales assigned to the
mentioned parameters, respectively.
S c) Risk Priority Number (RPN): The practical safety risk
assessment method, which is based on three essential pa-
rameters, including severity, probability, and detectability
Table 18

RS10
RS11
RS12
RS13
RS14
RS15
RS16
RS17
RS18
RS19
RS1
RS2
RS3
RS4
RS5
RS6
RS7
RS8
RS9
(Kangavari et al., 2015). Towards this purpose, the assigned
variables given to the these three parameters by the experts
15
S.R. Mohandes and X. Zhang Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125934

Table 20
The computed distances and the weighted distances.

S P E D SFB SPSC SPSSC SBEC

Dþ
ij
D
ij Dþ
ij
D
ij Dþ
ij
D
ij Dþ
ij
D
ij Dþ
ij
D
ij Dþ
ij
D
ij Dþ
ij
D
ij Dþ
ij
D
ij
RS1 0.000 0.890 0.435 0.446 0.574 0.584 0.719 0.239 0.000 0.955 0.000 0.955 0.264 0.751 0.743 0.354
RS2 0.652 0.281 0.569 0.305 0.797 0.330 0.410 0.568 0.208 0.791 0.485 0.536 0.000 0.960 0.743 0.354
RS3 0.000 0.890 0.000 0.841 0.071 1.014 0.875 0.061 0.000 0.955 0.131 0.863 0.000 0.960 0.743 0.354
RS4 0.000 0.890 0.077 0.777 0.000 1.059 0.760 0.195 0.000 0.955 0.264 0.743 0.000 0.960 0.743 0.354
RS5 0.000 0.890 0.433 0.448 0.000 1.059 0.458 0.508 0.000 0.955 0.264 0.743 0.093 0.888 1.032 0.000
RS6 0.559 0.388 0.352 0.530 0.667 0.480 0.526 0.453 0.631 0.390 0.446 0.581 0.673 0.349 1.032 0.000
RS7 0.631 0.314 0.569 0.305 1.013 0.059 0.109 0.838 0.955 0.000 0.559 0.464 0.356 0.670 1.032 0.000
RS8 0.739 0.188 0.673 0.188 0.942 0.151 0.109 0.838 0.920 0.043 0.559 0.464 0.673 0.349 1.032 0.000
RS9 0.000 0.890 0.015 0.829 0.497 0.658 0.353 0.627 0.000 0.955 0.000 0.955 0.131 0.869 0.743 0.354
RS10 0.504 0.451 0.186 0.685 0.332 0.807 0.0009 0.924 0.631 0.390 0.446 0.581 0.950 0.013 1.032 0.000
RS11 0.631 0.314 0.472 0.407 1.059 0.000 0.924 0.000 0.264 0.743 0.356 0.663 0.890 0.088 1.032 0.000
RS12 0.000 0.890 0.841 0.000 0.667 0.480 0.230 0.735 0.264 0.743 0.000 0.955 0.890 0.088 0.663 0.448
RS13 0.000 0.890 0.841 0.000 0.992 0.090 0.834 0.110 0.955 0.000 0.955 0.000 0.955 0.014 0.000 1.032
RS14 0.536 0.413 0.716 0.145 0.264 0.862 0.233 0.726 0.955 0.000 0.485 0.536 0.955 0.014 0.632 0.483
RS15 0.631 0.314 0.472 0.407 0.886 0.224 0.109 0.838 0.264 0.743 0.356 0.663 0.890 0.088 0.663 0.448
RS16 0.631 0.314 0.186 0.685 0.264 0.862 0.109 0.838 0.631 0.390 0.446 0.581 0.890 0.088 1.032 0.000
RS17 0.890 0.000 0.622 0.247 0.955 0.139 0.0009 0.924 0.678 0.335 0.485 0.536 0.955 0.014 0.264 0.829
RS18 0.574 0.375 0.648 0.217 0.264 0.862 0.295 0.671 0.591 0.433 0.631 0.390 0.955 0.014 0.000 1.032
RS19 0.793 0.120 0.648 0.217 0.264 0.862 0.029 0.913 0.591 0.433 0.631 0.390 0.955 0.014 0.000 1.032

Table 21
The computed grey relational coefficient and grey relational grades.

RS1 RS2 RS3 RS4 RS5 RS6 RS7 RS8 RS9 RS10 RS11 RS12 RS13 RS14 RS15 RS16 RS17 RS18 RS19

diþ 0.336 0.471 0.229 0.227 0.271 0.632 0.670 0.723 0.231 0.545 0.719 0.440 0.687 0.605 0.549 0.556 0.620 0.491 0.487
di- 0.661 0.536 0.749 0.752 0.705 0.384 0.321 0.269 0.764 0.455 0.268 0.557 0.280 0.398 0.459 0.446 0.373 0.512 0.509

Table 22
The computed grey relational coefficient and grey relational grades.

S P E D SFB SPSC SPSSC SBEC

zþ
ij
z
ij zþ
ij
z
ij zþ
ij
z
ij zþ
ij
z
ij zþ
ij
z
ij zþ
ij
z
ij zþ
ij
z
ij zþ
ij
z
ij
RS1 1.000 0.372 0.548 0.542 0.479 0.475 0.423 0.688 1.000 0.356 1.000 0.356 0.667 0.413 0.415 0.598
RS2 0.448 0.652 0.481 0.634 0.398 0.615 0.563 0.482 0.717 0.400 0.521 0.496 1.000 0.355 0.415 0.598
RS3 1.000 0.372 1.000 0.386 0.880 0.342 0.376 0.896 1.000 0.356 0.801 0.380 1.000 0.355 0.415 0.598
RS4 1.000 0.372 0.872 0.405 1.000 0.333 0.410 0.730 1.000 0.356 0.667 0.415 1.000 0.355 0.415 0.598
RS5 1.000 0.372 0.550 0.541 1.000 0.333 0.535 0.510 1.000 0.356 0.667 0.415 0.850 0.373 0.338 1.000
RS6 0.486 0.576 0.600 0.499 0.442 0.524 0.501 0.538 0.456 0.575 0.542 0.476 0.440 0.602 0.338 1.000
RS7 0.456 0.627 0.481 0.634 0.343 0.899 0.828 0.387 0.356 1.000 0.486 0.532 0.597 0.441 0.338 1.000
RS8 0.417 0.737 0.440 0.737 0.359 0.777 0.828 0.387 0.365 0.923 0.486 0.532 0.440 0.602 0.338 1.000
RS9 1.000 0.372 0.971 0.389 0.515 0.445 0.599 0.457 1.000 0.356 1.000 0.356 0.801 0.378 0.415 0.598
RS10 0.512 0.540 0.739 0.435 0.614 0.396 0.998 0.364 0.456 0.575 0.542 0.476 0.357 0.974 0.338 1.000
RS11 0.456 0.627 0.528 0.565 0.333 1.000 0.364 1.000 0.667 0.415 0.597 0.444 0.372 0.857 0.338 1.000
RS12 1.000 0.372 0.386 1.000 0.442 0.524 0.697 0.418 0.667 0.415 1.000 0.356 0.372 0.857 0.443 0.541
RS13 1.000 0.372 0.386 1.000 0.347 0.854 0.388 0.827 0.356 1.000 0.356 1.000 0.356 0.972 1.000 0.338
RS14 0.496 0.561 0.424 0.783 0.667 0.380 0.693 0.421 0.356 1.000 0.521 0.496 0.356 0.972 0.455 0.522
RS15 0.456 0.627 0.528 0.565 0.374 0.702 0.828 0.387 0.667 0.415 0.597 0.444 0.372 0.857 0.443 0.541
RS16 0.456 0.627 0.739 0.435 0.667 0.380 0.828 0.387 0.456 0.575 0.542 0.476 0.372 0.857 0.338 1.000
RS17 0.372 1.000 0.459 0.681 0.356 0.791 0.998 0.364 0.438 0.612 0.521 0.496 0.356 0.972 0.667 0.389
RS18 0.479 0.584 0.449 0.708 0.667 0.380 0.641 0.441 0.472 0.549 0.456 0.575 0.356 0.972 1.000 0.338
RS19 0.400 0.814 0.449 0.708 0.667 0.380 0.947 0.366 0.472 0.549 0.456 0.575 0.356 0.972 1.000 0.338

Table 23
The grey relational grades of each safety risk.

RS1 RS2 RS3 RS4 RS5 RS6 RS7 RS8 RS9 RS10 RS11 RS12 RS13 RS14 RS15 RS16 RS17 RS18 RS19

giþ 0.087 0.072 0.100 0.100 0.095 0.058 0.060 0.056 0.096 0.068 0.056 0.078 0.066 0.061 0.065 0.066 0.064 0.071 0.074
gi- 0.058 0.065 0.057 0.055 0.060 0.076 0.087 0.090 0.052 0.076 0.093 0.068 0.098 0.080 0.071 0.076 0.083 0.070 0.073

Table 24 involved in the study (that were in the range of “very low” to
The ranges of parameters used for different scenarios (SCs). “very high”) were substituted for 1 and 7, in turn.
SC 1 SC 2 SC 3 SC 4 SC 5 SC 6 SC 7 SC 8 SC 9 SC 10 SC 11 d) Risk Assessment Model (RAM): The safety risk assessment
a 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
model that is based on all the parameters considered in this
b 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 study; however, the importance of DMs’ weights as well as

16
S.R. Mohandes and X. Zhang Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125934

Fig. 5. Experimental results with regard to different scenario.

Table 25 assessment approaches as follows; RSK14, RSK18, and RSK19

Considered Scenarios (SCs) for undertaking sensitivity analysis. in Fine Kinney approach, RSK8, RSK11, and RSK14 in the RPN
NO of DMs Weights approach, and RSK1, RSK2, and RSK12 in TFRAM. Notably, the
mentioned risks ranked in the same place using other ap-
Current study SC1 SC 2 SC 3 SC 4
proaches are only some examples to show the diversification
DM1 0.2166 0.2112 0.2915 0.2807 0.25
of the proposed HOHSRAM. As can be seen from the rankings
DM2 0.2112 0.2807 0.2112 0.2166 0.25
DM3 0.2807 0.2915 0.2166 0.2915 0.25 obtained from HOHSRAM, there are not any two risks being
DM4 0.2915 0.2166 0.2807 0.2112 0.25 ranked in the same place, which paves the way for the safety
professionals to come up with proper mitigative actions.
(2) Another observation is that the rankings obtained from
their biases existing at the assessment stage are not taken HOHSRAM and RAM are slightly different from one another,
into account; and due to the consideration of importance weights of DMs as
e) Triangular Fuzzy Risk Assessment Model (TFRAM): The well as their biases in HOHSRAM. As an example, RS9 is
similar safety risk assessment model to RAM mentioned ranked in the first place using the proposed model in the
above; nevertheless, TFNs are used instead of IVPFNs. study, while RS4 has the highest magnitude according to
RAM. More importantly, the final rankings obtained from
HOHSRAM are slightly more diversified than that of RAM. For
instance, RS2 and RS12 are ranked in the same place using
3.4. Findings RAM. As a result, even if all the essential parameters deter-
mined in the study are considered, there is a vital need to
Concerning Fig. 7 that illustrates the rankings obtained from the take into consideration the DMs’ importance weights
application of the developed HOHSRAM against the other safety together with the level of their leniency while conducting
assessment methods, the following observations have been drawn: the assessment stage.
(3) Another plus point of the developed HOHSRAM is the
(1) Due to the consideration of all the essential parameters for exploitation of IVPFNs, as can be seen from the rankings
assessing the respective workers’ safety level, the rankings obtained from HOHSRAM against TFRAM. For instance, RS1,
obtained from HOHSRAM together with RAM are much more RS2, and RS12 are ranked in the fifth spots using TFRAM,
diversified than those of others. For instance, RSK2, RSK8, which leads to impairing the safety professionals’ un-
RSK11, RSK14, RSK15, RSK18, and RSK19 are ranked in the derstandings regarding the further fruitful actions to be
same spot in the traditional risk assessment approach. taken after conducting the assessment stage. The reason for
Similarly, some risks are occupied the same place using other
17
S.R. Mohandes and X. Zhang Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125934

Fig. 6. Obtained rankings using different weights in the considered Scenarios (SCs).

Fig. 7. Comparisons between the rankings obtained using the proposed HOHSRAM against the other assessment methods.

the supremacy of HOHSRAM against TFRAM lies in three
main reasons. Firstly, the DMs’ importance weights with
regard to their profiles are prudently considered in HOHS-
RAM. Secondly, TFRAM lacks the involvement of the
respective DMs’ biases in the assessment step. Thirdly, the
introduction of IVPFNs to the assessment stage leads to
capturing much more uncertainty as compared to the com-
mon TFNs.
(4) In addition to the advantages mentioned above, the model
proposed in this study leads to improving the social sus-
tainability aspect. To begin with, there is a strong connection
between Safety and Health (S&H) of people living in a society

18
S.R. Mohandes and X. Zhang
Fig. 8. The linkages between OHS in workplaces and social sustainability.
and social stability of the respective community as stated by
diverse researchers (Daniel et al., 2020; Nawaz et al., 2019;
Xu et al., 2020). To substantiate this claim, Fig. 8 is drawn to
show the mentioned linkage as explained by Jilcha and Kitaw
(2017); once the OHS within the relative workplace has
improved, then the well-being of respective workers are
boosted (which results from reduced work-related injuries).
Consequently, when the workers’ S&H is improved, then
their immediate family members do not need to take care of
the injured workers (whether mentally or pecuniary). As
opined by Dorman (2000), the care-giver not only would
sustain pecuniary loss resulting from provisions of help for
the injured parties (since they may need to ask for reduced
working hours or provide the necessary medications to the
disabled parties), but also they suffer from psychological or
mental disorders caused by partial/permanent disability
imposed on the injured workers. More importantly, loss of a
worker’s life has a life-long devastating impact on the quality
lives of remaining members of family, particularly the
youngsters. Considering the mentioned explanations, the life
quality of workers’ family members is strongly intertwined
with the S&H of workers. Ultimately, after promoting the
quality life of workers as well as their immediate family
members, a bond social community, in which the well-being
of each and every one of the citizens are given priority, could
be achieved (Bamgbade et al., 2017; Munny et al., 2019). With
the above in mind, by looking at the results produced from
the application of the developed model to the selected case
study, it is verified that diversified and inclusive rankings of
risks are obtained, leading to taking better decisions to
control the analyzed risks later on. This in turn leads to a
marked reduction in the rate of accidents occurred on con-
struction sites, promoting not only the respective workers’
lives, but also their family members. As a result of this pro-
motion, social sustainability aspect of a full-sustainable
development (shown in the drawn triangle) can be achieved.
4. Practical implications
Through the developed model in this research, the safety pro-
fessionals and analysts are provided with inclusive and precise
comprehensive ranking system of the safety risks occurred on
construction sites in unique ways. Firstly, it is witnessed that the
safety decision makers involved in the assessment stage are
19
Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125934
assigned precise importance weights based on their profiles for the
very first time, which solves the shortcomings existing in the
common practice of construction safety assessment (in which there
is no distinction between the safety decision makers having
different competency). The introduction of this crucial matter re-
sults in obtaining very diversified rankings of identified safety risks.
Additionally, the concerned safety professionals are provided with
a very comprehensive final ranking system in an active environ-
ment, by considering all the essential factors playing role in the
safety assessment of construction workers. This is in striking
contrast to the common practices adopted on construction sites, in
which the HOTE-related parameters are overlooked. Furthermore,
the developed model in this study obviates the need for having
observed data. To conduct safety assessment on construction sites,
some firms are only taken the observed data into consideration.
This means that the assessment of risks can only be possible if the
risk has already occurred to the workers involved in a hazardous
activity. Nonetheless, through the proposed model in this study, the
safety professionals are able to perceive the inclusive magnitude
associated with a safety risk, even if there has not been any sta-
tistical data reported at the time of assessment. On top of all that, in
the proposed model, the safety decision makers invited to conduct
the assessment step become able to evaluate the identified safety
risks with regard to a wide range of essential parameters using
linguistic variables (which overcomes the use of raw numbers that
are rampant in the common practice). In a nutshell, the finalized
prioritized safety risks are quite inclusive and precise, which paves
the way for the safety analysts and inspectors to come up with
suitable evaluation strategies as per their final rankings in the on-
going project.
5. Limitations of the research
Even though the model proposed in this study leads to
providing fruitful results and unique hindsight for the safety pro-
fessionals, the following limitations should be taken note of:
(1) The first limitation is concerned with the computational
procedures involved in conducting the assessment stage
using the developed model, even though the results pro-
duced are verified to be by far more precise and compre-
hensive than those of existing assessment methods.
(2) There is a need to apply the developed model in this research
to more case studies, so as to be fully ensured regarding its
S.R. Mohandes and X. Zhang Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125934

efficacy in diverse construction projects for assessing the
safety risks of different construction worker trades.
(3) The use of purposeful-sampling technique within the body of
the developed model in the study can be regarded as another
limitation of the research, though the results attained from
such technique contributes to more inclusive hindsight
(since the experts involved in this sampling technique are
selected based on some strict requirements as explained in
(Karakhan and Gambatese, 2017b)).
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Saeed Reza Mohandes: Conceptualization, Project administra-
tion, Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data
curation, Visualization, Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing
- review & editing. Xueqing Zhang: Funding acquisition, Supervi-
sion, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing

financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

6. Conclusion and future works Acknowledgments

As widely being agreed upon by the OHS experts, a prudent risk This research is financially supported by the National Natural
assessment model should be peculiar as much as possible to the Science Foundation of China (Project Number: 71472052). More-
respective industry under investigation. In other words, a proper over, the authors express their sincere gratitude to the Hong Kong
assessment step solely comes to fruition if all the essential risk University of Science and Technology for providing the additional
parameters, including INJ-as well as HOTE-related parameters, are help in paving the way for having this research completed.
taken into consideration. In this sense, the construction industry is
not an exception to this rule of thumb. Hence, in the current study, Appendix A. The computational steps of LFANP
an HOHSRAM is developed to be as comprehensive as enough
through the consideration of all the essential parameters of risks In this appendix, the involved procedures for computing the
related to the CWs. The contributions of the developed HOHSRAM importance weights of DMs have been clearly explained as follows:
based on its application to a real-life sustainable construction Based on the fuzzy-based pair-wise comparisons, the following
project are observed to be manifold as follows: ~ can be constructed:
matrix A
2 3
(1) Assigning precise weights to the chosen safety decision ~11
a / ~1n
a
makers using a logarithmic-fuzzy-based constrained opti- ~¼6
A 4 « 1
7
« 5 (A-1)
mization algorithm. ~n1
a / ~nn
a
(2) Incorporating the individual biases of the involved safety
decision makers into obtaining the final ranking of the risks ~ij ¼ ðlij ; mij ; uij Þ indicates the importance/priority of item i
where a
for the first time in the literature.
over item j, and i ¼ j ¼ 1,2, …, n. It is notable to mention that the
(3) Involving all the essential RPs for assessing the safety level of
term “item” here refers to the factors to be compared as against
CWs, including INJ-together with HOTE-related parameters.
each other in any category (i.e. the category related to criteria or
(4) Incorporating the importance weights related to the safety
decision makers). Then, the logarithm values of fuzzy judgment a ~ij
DMs and essential RPs into the safety risk assessment stage
can be obtained from matrix A ~ through the following approximate
concurrently for the first time in the literature.
(5) Providing the concerned safety professionals with a precise equation:
and comprehensive finalized ranking under Interval-Valued  
~ij z ln lij ; ln mij ; ln uij ;
ln a for i; j ¼ 1; 2; …; n (A-2)
Pythagorean Fuzzy environment, culminating in much
more prudent results than that of the commonly used safety On the other hand, the membership function of the above-
assessment approaches. ~ij can be defined as below:
mentioned logarithmic fuzzy judgment a

The developed HOHSRAM is proved to be beneficial for the !

8 
safety professionals concerned with the well-being of the involved >
> ln wi w  ln lij !
>
> j wi
workers, steering them to come up with the further fecund treat- >
!! >>
> ; ln  ln mij
ment actions in a circumspect manner. Having said that, there are wi < ln m ij  ln lij wj
some potential future research that could be carried out as follows: mij ln ¼ !
wj >
>
(1) extending the safety risk assessment of CWs beyond the pa- >
> 
>
> ln uij  ln wi w !
rameters considered in this study, (2) proposing an evaluation >
> j wi
:
strategy for dealing with the finalized risks ranking obtained from ; ln  ln mij
ln uij  ln mij wj
the exploitation of developed model in the study, (3) developing an
innovative safety risk mitigative model for controlling the assessed (A-3)
risks using the developed HOHSRAM in the study, (4) developing a
where mij ðln ðwi =wj ÞÞ is the membership degree of ln ðwi =wj Þ that
risk assessment model based on the interdependencies among the
belongs to the approximate triangular fuzzy judgment ln a ~ij ¼
parameters, (5) developing a graphical decision support system-
based model for assessing the safety risks occurred on construc- ðln lij ; ln mij ; ln uij Þ, and wi are crisp values of the priority vector, so
tion sites, using the computational-based methods exploited in the that we have the following:
proposed model in this study, and (6) using other types of extended
FSTs (such as Hesitant or Intuitionistic) or Neutrosophic logic sets X
n
W ¼ ðw1 ; …; wn ÞT > 0; wi ¼ 1 (A-4)
instead of IVPFNs used in the developed formwork, and accordingly i¼1
make comparisons between the obtained results.
20
S.R. Mohandes and X. Zhang Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125934

However, it is necessary to obtain a crisp priority vector to following LFPP-based nonlinear priority model for weight ðwi Þ
maximize the minimum membership degree as blow: derivation needs to be taken into account:

      X
n1 n 
X 
l ¼ min mij ln wi wj i ¼ 1; 2; …; n  1; j ¼ i þ 1; …; n Min J ¼ ð1  lÞ2 þ M  dij 2 þ hij 2
(A-5) i¼1 j¼iþ1

8      
>
>xi  xj  l ln mij lij þ dij  ln lij ; i ¼ 1; 2; …; n  1; j ¼ i þ 1; …; n;
<      
xi þ xj  l ln uij mij þ hij  ln uij ; i ¼ 1; 2; …; n  1; j ¼ i þ 1; …; n;
s:t: (A-10)
>
> l; xi  0; i ¼ 1; 2; …; n
:
dij ; hij  0; i ¼ 1; 2; …; n  1; j ¼ i þ 1; …; n;

Then, the resultant model can be constructed as follow:

Max l
where xi ¼ ln wi for i ¼ 1; 2; …; n, and M is a specified sufficiently
    large constant such as M ¼ 103 .
mij ln wi wj  l; i ¼ 1; 2; …; n  1; j ¼ i þ 1; …; n Following the computation of the relative weights, they need to
s:t:
wi  0; i ¼ 1; 2; …; n be normalized as below:
(A-6)
 
or exp x*i
Wi* ¼ P  ; i ¼ 1; 2; …; n (A-11)
n *
j¼1 exp xj
Max 1  l

where x*i (i ¼ 1; 2; …; nÞ is the optimal solution to the model (A-10),

*
exp ( ) is the exponential function, namely expðx*i Þ ¼ exi for i ¼ 1; 2;

     
ln wi  ln wj  l ln mij lij  ln lij ; i ¼ 1; 2; …; n  1; j ¼ i þ 1; …; n
s:t:       (A-7)
ln wi þ ln wj  l ln uij mij  ln uij ; i ¼ 1; 2; …; n  1; j ¼ i þ 1; …; n

With the purpose of avoiding membership degree l from taking a
negative value, the nonnegative deviation variables dij and hij for i ¼
1; 2; …; n  1 and j ¼ i þ 1; …; n are used such that they meet the
following inequalities:
     
ln wi  ln wj  l ln mij lij þ dij  ln lij ;
i ¼ 1; 2; …; n  1; j ¼ i þ 1; …; n
     
ln wi þ ln wj  l ln uij mij þ hij  ln uij ;
i ¼ 1; 2; …; n  1; j ¼ i þ 1; …; n
In order for the deviation variables to be as small as possible, the
…; n. Needless to say, in the current proposed LFANP algorithm for
computing the weights of DMs, Wi* should be calculated for each of
the three mentioned variables separately, namely, wrp , and wdm .
(A-8)
Appendix B. Safety barriers
wp The appropriate safety barriers with regard to the respective
(A-9)
safety risks corresponding to tower crane workers are summarized
as follow.

Table B
1. Safety barriers appertaining to the identified safety risks

Risks Proposed corresponding treatment measures

RS1 Installing a grab around the whole area, where the respective workers may stand on Prohibiting the use of crane to for lifting up the workers who work on the
suspended platform
Using fall arrest, fall harness, etc., when working at heights
Inspecting ladders before moving up, and refrain from climbing on a broken ladder
RS2 Wearing shoes with slip free soles
Prohibiting workers from working on slippery surfaces
RS3 Obliging all the crews to wear hard hats, safety shoes, ear plugs, gloves, and other PPE as appropriate in the vicinity of cranes on construction sites
Checking all hanging points that are fit, prior to assigning workers to carry out proper hoisting
(continued on next page)

21
S.R. Mohandes and X. Zhang Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125934

Table B (continued )

Risks Proposed corresponding treatment measures

Being ensured that all the hand tools are tied to the appropriate position with a rope
Assigning only workers who have obtained the rigging certificate to carry out hoisting procedures
Fencing off the lower working area, prior to the commencement of the working procedures
Putting away all the used tools properly until the works procedures are completed
RS4 Obliging all the crews to wear hard hats, safety shoes, ear plugs, gloves, and other PPE as appropriate in the vicinity of cranes on construction sites
Fencing off the lower working area, prior to the commencement of the working procedures
Assigning only workers who have obtained the rigging certificate to carry out hoisting procedures
Using wires and shackles to secure the hook on the jib
Checking the weights fitted correctly corresponding to those shown on the counterweight
RS5 Obliging all the crews to wear hard hats, safety shoes, ear plugs, gloves, and other PPE as appropriate in the vicinity of cranes on construction sites
Fencing off the lower working area, prior to the commencement of the working procedures
Checking all the hanging points of ballasts are proper
Ensuring the shackle is properly installed before assigning workers to commence the tower crane telescoping procedure
Ensuring the wedges are properly installed before assigning workers to commence the tower crane telescoping procedure
Ensuring the telescopic cage has been secured with wires
Checking the monorail is secure before proceeding
RS6 Obliging all the workers to wear hard hats, safety shoes, gloves, and other PPE as appropriate in the vicinity of cranes in construction work
Allowing adequate clearance between moving or rotating elements of the crane and fixed structures to prevent crushing or entrapment
RS7 Maintaining good communication and co-ordination between the different workplaces’ responsible persons regarding the lifting operations
Providing the crane operators with a clear view of the whole of the overlapping zone(s) of the tower crane
Setting up the working space limiter(s) or anti-collision system
RS8 Obliging all the workers to wear hard hats, safety shoes, gloves, and other PPE as appropriate in the vicinity of cranes in construction work
RS9 Checking electrical equipment for safety before use by a qualified electricity technician for testing and repair of faulty or suspect equipment
Using the proximity warning/current detector devices for detecting the presence of an electrical field
Keeping the minimum clearance between the powerlines and any part of the crane or load
RS10 Use of tools for lifting or moving objects
Providing ergonomic training sessions for the involved workers
RS11 Use of the symbols and labels indicating the existing chemical risk
Wearing the appropriate gloves when contacting with chemicals
RS12 Emptying the crane cabin of tins of grease and oil or other fluids
Keeping fire extinguishers of appropriate types and quantities in the cabin
Carrying out hot works as per the requirements of the hot works safe working procedures
RS13 Preventing workers from working with powerlines when a storm is hoisted
Checking the weather in advance, and suspending all the activities during the severe storm
RS14 Wearing ear plug while working in noisy circumstances
RS15 Use of the symbols and labels indicating the existing chemical risks
Wearing the appropriate gloves when contacting with chemicals
RS16 Having regular breaks when performing repetitive tasks
Working at a steady pace Wearing appropriate anti-vibration gloves when operating handheld power tools
Providing ergonomic training sessions for the involved workers
RS17 Providing the workers with flexible working-time
Having short breaks after performing laborious tasks
RS18 Providing the workers with days-off when they are supposed to perform activities in very hot weather
Consuming a large amount of water during the performance of activities in hot weather
RS19 Providing the workers with days-off when they are supposed to perform activities in very hot weather
Providing the workers with medical pills to reduce their levels of blood pressure

References J. Hazard Mater. 71, 101e116.

Celik, E., Gul, M., Gumus, A.T., Guneri, A.F., 2012. A fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on
trapezoidal numbers to material selection problem. J. Inf. Technol. Appl. Manag.
Aminbakhsh, S., Gunduz, M., Sonmez, R., 2013. Safety risk assessment using analytic
19, 19e30.
hierarchy process (AHP) during planning and budgeting of construction pro-
Chang, Y.-H., Shao, P.-C., Chen, H.J., 2015. Performance evaluation of airport safety
jects. J. Saf. Res. 46, 99e105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2013.05.003.
management systems in Taiwan. Saf. Sci. 75, 72e86.
Amiri, M., Ardeshir, A., Fazel Zarandi, M.H., 2017. Fuzzy probabilistic expert system
Chen, C., Reniers, G., 2020. Chemical industry in China: the current status, safety
for occupational hazard assessment in construction. Saf. Sci. 93, 16e28. https://
problems, and pathways for future sustainable development. Saf. Sci. 128,
doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.11.008.
104741.
Aneziris, O.N., Papazoglou, I.A., Kallianiotis, D., 2010. Occupational risk of tunneling
Cheraghi, M., Eslami Baladeh, A., Khakzad, N., 2019. A fuzzy multi-attribute HAZOP
construction. Saf. Sci. 48, 964e972.
technique (FMA-HAZOP): application to gas wellhead facilities. Saf. Sci. 114,
Aras, F., Karakaş, E., Biçen, Y., 2014. Fuzzy logic-based user interface design for risk
12e22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.12.024.
assessment considering human factor: a case study for high-voltage cell. Saf.
Cho, C.S., Boafo, F., Byon, Y.J., Kim, H., 2017. Impact analysis of the new OSHA cranes
Sci. 70, 387e396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.07.013.
and derricks regulations on crane operation safety. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 21, 54e66.
Auzoult, L., Ngueutsa, R., 2019. Attitude to safety rules and reflexivity as de-
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-016-0468-7.
terminants of safety climate. J. Saf. Res. 71, 95e102.
Chung, W.W.S., Tariq, S., Mohandes, S.R., Zayed, T., 2020. IoT-based application for
Aven, T., 2013. Practical implications of the new risk perspectives. Reliab. Eng. Syst.
construction site safety monitoring. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 1e17. https://doi.org/
Saf. 115, 136e145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.02.020.
10.1080/15623599.2020.1847405.
Ayhan, B.U., Tokdemir, O.B., 2020. Accident analysis for construction safety using
Cupido, G., 2009. The role of production and teamwork practices in construction
latent class clustering and artificial neural networks. J. Construct. Eng. Manag.
safety: a cognitive model and an empirical case study. J. Saf. Res. 40, 265e275.
146, 4019114.
Dabbagh, R., Yousefi, S., 2019. A hybrid decision-making approach based on FCM
Bamgbade, J.A., Kamaruddeen, A.M., Nawi, M.N.M., 2017. Malaysian construction
and MOORA for occupational health and safety risk analysis. J. Saf. Res. 71,
firms’ social sustainability via organizational innovativeness and government
111e123.
support: the mediating role of market culture. J. Clean. Prod. 154, 114e124.
Daǧdeviren, M., Yüksel, I., 2008. Developing a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
Biyikli, O., Aydogan, E.K., 2016. A new model suggestion to estimate the probability
(AHP) model for behavior-based safety management. Inf. Sci. (Ny) 178,
value in occupational health and safety risk assessment. Appl. Math. Inf. Sci. 10,
1717e1733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2007.10.016.
663e671. https://doi.org/10.18576/amis/100226.
Daniel, E.I., Oshodi, O.S., Arif, M., Henjewele, C., Haywood, K., 2020. Strategies for
Bowles, J.B., Pel aez, C.E., 1995. Fuzzy logic prioritization of failures in a system
improving construction craftspeople apprenticeship training programme: evi-
failure mode, effects and criticality analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 50, 203e213.
dence from the UK. J. Clean. Prod. 266, 122135. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Cacciabue, P.C., 2000. Human factors impact on risk analysis of complex systems.

22
S.R. Mohandes and X. Zhang
j.jclepro.2020.122135.
Debnath, J., Biswas, A., Sivan, P., Sen, K.N., Sahu, S., 2016. Fuzzy inference model for
assessing occupational risks in construction sites. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 55, 114e128.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2016.08.004.
Dewlaney, K.S., Hallowell, M.R., Fortunato, B.R., 2012. Safety risk quantification for
high performance sustainable building construction. J. Construct. Eng. Manag.
138, 964e971. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000504.
Djapan, M., Macuzic, I., Tadic, D., Baldissone, G., 2018. An innovative prognostic risk
assessment tool for manufacturing sector based on the management of the
human, organizational and technical/technological factors. Saf. Sci. 0e 1 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.02.032.
Dorman, P., 2000. The Economics of Safety, Health, and Well-Being at Work: an
Overview. ILO, Geneva.
Esmaeili, B., Hallowell, M., 2013. Integration of safety risk data with highway con-
struction schedules. Construct. Manag. Econ. 31, 528e541. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01446193.2012.739288.
Fardhosseini, M.S., Esmaeili, B., Wood, R., 2015. A Strategic Safety-Risk Management
Plan for Recovery after Disaster Operations. British Columbia, Vancouver, 5th
International/11th Construction Specialty Conference.
Frazier, C.B., Ludwig, T.D., Whitaker, B., Roberts, D.S., 2013. A hierarchical factor
analysis of a safety culture survey. J. Saf. Res. 45, 15e28.
Fung, I.W.H., Tam, V.W.Y., Lo, T.Y., Lu, L.L.H., 2010. Developing a risk assessment
model for construction safety. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28, 593e600.
Gangolells, M., Casals, M., Forcada, N., Roca, X., Fuertes, A., 2010. Mitigating con-
struction safety risks using prevention through design. J. Saf. Res. 41, 107e122.
Grassi, A., Gamberini, R., Mora, C., Rimini, B., 2009. A fuzzy multi-attribute model
for risk evaluation in workplaces. Saf. Sci. 47, 707e716. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ssci.2008.10.002.
Gul, M., Celik, E., 2018. Fuzzy rule-based FineeKinney risk assessment approach for
rail transportation systems. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 24, 1786e1812. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2017.1422975.
Gul, M., Guneri, A.F., 2016. A fuzzy multi criteria risk assessment based on decision
matrix technique: a case study for aluminum industry. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind.
40, 89e100.
Gul, M., Ak, M.F., Guneri, A.F., 2019. Pythagorean fuzzy VIKOR-based approach for
safety risk assessment in mine industry. J. Saf. Res.
Gunduz, M., Laitinen, H., 2018. Construction safety risk assessment with introduced
control levels. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 24, 11e18. https://doi.org/10.3846/
jcem.2018.284.
Gürcanli, G.E., Müngen, U., 2009. An occupational safety risk analysis method at
construction sites using fuzzy sets. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 39, 371e387.
Hallowell, M.R., 2008. A Formal Model for Construction Safety and Health Risk
Management. Oregon State University.
Hallowell, M.R., Gambatese, J.A., 2010. Qualitative Research : application of the
Delphi method to CEM research. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 136, 99e107.
Hamid, A.R.A., Noor Azmi, M.R.A., Aminudin, E., Jaya, R.P., Zakaria, R.,
Zawawi, A.M.M., Yahya, K., Haron, Z., Yunus, R., Saar, C.C., 2019. Causes of fatal
construction accidents in Malaysia. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 220 https://
doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/220/1/012044.
Hardison, D., Behm, M., Hallowell, M.R., Fonooni, H., 2014. Identifying construction
supervisor competencies for effective site safety. Saf. Sci. 65, 45e53. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.12.013.
Hatami-Marbini, A., Tavana, M., Moradi, M., Kangi, F., 2013. A fuzzy group Electre
method for safety and health assessment in hazardous waste recycling facilities.
Saf. Sci. 51, 414e426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.08.015.
Hinze, J., Devenport, J.N., Giang, G., 2006. Analysis of construction worker injuries
that do not result in lost time. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 132, 321e326.
Hkg, 2004. Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method.
Hong Kong Occupational Health and Safety Branch, 2011. Code of Practice for Safe
Use of Tower Cranes. Labour Department. https://www.labour.gov.hk/eng/
public/os/B/crane.pdf.
Hwang, B.-G., Shan, M., Phuah, S.L., 2018. Safety in green building construction
projects in Singapore: performance, critical issues, and improvement solutions.
KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 22, 447e458.
Ilbahar, E., Karaşan, A., Cebi, S., Kahraman, C., 2018. A novel approach to risk
assessment for occupational health and safety using Pythagorean fuzzy AHP &
fuzzy inference system. Saf. Sci. 103, 124e136. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ssci.2017.10.025.
Iqbal, H., Waheed, B., Haider, H., Tesfamariam, S., Sadiq, R., 2019. Mapping safety
culture attributes with integrity management program to achieve assessment
goals: a framework for oil and gas pipelines industry. J. Saf. Res. 68, 59e69.
Isaac, S., Edrei, T., 2016. A statistical model for dynamic safety risk control on
construction sites. Autom. ConStruct. 63, 66e78. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.autcon.2015.12.006.
Jamshidi, A., Yazdani-Chamzini, A., Yakhchali, S.H., Khaleghi, S., 2013. Developing a
new fuzzy inference system for pipeline risk assessment. J. Loss Prev. Process.
Ind. 26, 197e208.
Jilcha, K., Kitaw, D., 2017. Industrial occupational safety and health innovation for
sustainable development. Eng. Sci. Technol. an Int. J. 20, 372e380. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2016.10.011.
Kangavari, M., Salimi, S., Nourian, R., Omidi, L., Askarian, A., 2015. An application of
failure mode and effect analysis ( FMEA ) to assess risks in petrochemical in-
dustry in Iran. Iran. J. Heal. Saf. Environ. 2, 257e263.
Karakhan, A.A., Gambatese, J.A., 2017a. Identification, quantification, and classifi-
cation of potential safety risk for sustainable construction in the United States.
23
Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125934
J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 143, 04017018 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
7862.0001302.
Karakhan, A.A., Gambatese, J.A., 2017b. Integrating worker health and safety into
sustainable design and construction: designer and constructor perspectives.
J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 143, 04017069 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
7862.0001379.
Karasan, A., Ilbahar, E., Cebi, S., Kahraman, C., 2018. A new risk assessment
approach: safety and Critical Effect Analysis (SCEA) and its extension with Py-
thagorean fuzzy sets. Saf. Sci. 108, 173e187. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ssci.2018.04.031.
Khan, M.W., Ali, Y., De Felice, F., Petrillo, A., 2019. Occupational health and safety in
construction industry in Pakistan using modified-SIRA method. Saf. Sci. 118,
109e118.
Kokangül, A., Polat, U., Dag suyu, C., 2017. A new approximation for risk assessment
using the AHP and Fine Kinney methodologies. Saf. Sci. 91, 24e32. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.07.015.
Kong Construction Industry Council, Hong, 2010. Guidlines on Safety of Tower
Cranes. CIC. https://doi.org/10.1049/jiee-2.1954.0022.
Koulinas, G.K., Marhavilas, P.K., Demesouka, O.E., Vavatsikos, A.P., Koulouriotis, D.E.,
2019. Risk analysis and assessment in the worksites using the fuzzy-analytical
hierarchy process and a quantitative technique e a case study for the Greek
construction sector. Saf. Sci. 112, 96e104. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ssci.2018.10.017.
Lees, F., 2012. Lees’ Loss Prevention in the Process Industries: Hazard Identification,
Assessment and Control. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Leib, S., Lu, C., 2013. A gap analysis of airport safety using ICAO SMS perspectives: a
field study of Taiwan. J. Aviat. Technol. Eng. 2, 7.
Malekitabar, H., Ardeshir, A., Sebt, M.H., Stouffs, R., 2016. Construction safety risk
drivers: a BIM approach. Saf. Sci. 82, 445e455. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ssci.2015.11.002.
Meade, L.M., Sarkis, J., 1999. Analyzing organizational project alternatives for agile
manufacturing processes: an analytical network approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 37,
241e261.
Mete, S., 2019. Assessing occupational risks in pipeline construction using FMEA-
based AHP-MOORA integrated approach under Pythagorean fuzzy environ-
ment. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 25, 1645e1660. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10807039.2018.1546115.
Mete, S., Serin, F., Oz, N.E., Gul, M., 2019. A decision-support system based on Py-
thagorean fuzzy VIKOR for occupational risk assessment of a natural gas
pipeline construction. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 71, 102979.
Mitropoulos, P., Namboodiri, M., 2011. New method for measuring the safety risk of
construction activities: task demand assessment. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 137,
30e38. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000246.
Mohaghegh, Z., Mosleh, A., 2009. Incorporating organizational factors into proba-
bilistic risk assessment of complex socio-technical systems: principles and
theoretical foundations. Saf. Sci. 47, 1139e1158.
Mohammadfam, I., Kamalinia, M., Momeni, M., Golmohammadi, R., Hamidi, Y.,
Soltanian, A., 2016. Developing an integrated decision making approach to
assess and promote the effectiveness of occupational health and safety man-
agement systems. J. Clean. Prod. 127, 119e133.
Mohammadi, A., Tavakolan, M., Khosravi, Y., 2018. Factors influencing safety per-
formance on construction projects: a review. Saf. Sci. 109, 382e397. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.06.017.
Mohandes, S.R., Zhang, X., 2019. Towards the development of a comprehensive
hybrid fuzzy-based occupational risk assessment model for construction
workers. Saf. Sci. 115, 294e309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.02.018.
Mohandes, S.R., Sadeghi, H., Mahdiyar, A., Durdyev, S., Banaitis, A., Yahya, K.,
Ismail, S., 2020. Assessing construction labours’ safety level: a fuzzy MCDM
approach. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 26, 175e188.
Mondal, S.P., 2016. Differential equation with interval valued fuzzy number and its
applications. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 7, 370e386.
Monferini, A., Konstandinidou, M., Nivolianitou, Z., Weber, S., Kontogiannis, T.,
Kafka, P., Kay, A.M., Leva, M.C., Demichela, M., 2013. A compound methodology
to assess the impact of human and organizational factors impact on the risk
level of hazardous industrial plants. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 119, 280e289.
Munny, A.A., Ali, S.M., Kabir, G., Moktadir, M.A., Rahman, T., Mahtab, Z., 2019. En-
ablers of social sustainability in the supply chain: an example of footwear in-
dustry from an emerging economy. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 20, 230e242.
Mure, S., Demichela, M., 2009. Fuzzy Application Procedure (FAP) for the risk
assessment of occupational accidents. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 22, 593e599.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2009.05.007.
Nahangi, M., Chen, Y., McCabe, B., 2019. Safety-based efficiency evaluation of con-
struction sites using data envelopment analysis (DEA). Saf. Sci. 113, 382e388.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.12.005.
Najib, L., Abdullah, L., 2013. A Lambda-Max of consistency test in Fuzzy Analytic
Hierarchy Process (FAHP) for weights of road accidents causes. AIP Conf. Proc.
1522, 426e434. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4801157.
Nawaz, W., Linke, P., Koҫ, M., 2019. Safety and sustainability nexus: a review and
appraisal. J. Clean. Prod. 216, 74e87.
Pinto, A., 2014. QRAM a qualitative occupational safety risk assessment model for
the construction industry that incorporate uncertainties by the use of fuzzy
sets. Saf. Sci. 63, 57e76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.10.019.
Pinto, A., Nunes, I.L., Ribeiro, R.A., 2011. Occupational risk assessment in construc-
tion industryeOverview and reflection. Saf. Sci. 49, 616e624.
Queensland Government, 2017. Tower Crane Code of Practice 2017. https://www.
S.R. Mohandes and X. Zhang
worksafe.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/20991/tower-crane-code-of-
practice-2017.pdf.
Rashid, T., Beg, I., Husnine, S.M., 2014. Robot selection by using generalized interval-
valued fuzzy numbers with TOPSIS. Appl. Soft Comput. 21, 462e468.
Raviv, G., Shapira, A., Fishbain, B., 2017. AHP-based analysis of the risk potential of
safety incidents: case study of cranes in the construction industry. Saf. Sci. 91,
298e309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.08.027.
Reniers, G.L.L., Cremer, K., Buytaert, J., 2011. Continuously and simultaneously
optimizing an organization’s safety and security culture and climate: the
Improvement Diamond for Excellence Achievement and Leadership in Safety &
Security (IDEAL S&S) model. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 1239e1249.
Ribas, J.R., Arce, M.E., Sohler, F.A., Sua rez-García, A., 2019. Multi-criteria risk
assessment: case study of a large hydroelectric project. J. Clean. Prod. 227,
237e247.
Rubio-Romero, J.C., Carmen Rubio G amez, M., Carrillo-Castrillo, J.A., 2013. Analysis
of the safety conditions of scaffolding on construction sites. Saf. Sci. 55,
160e164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.01.006.
Sadeghi, H., Mohandes, S.R., Hamid, A.R.A., Preece, C., Hedayati, A., Singh, B., 2016.
Reviewing the usefulness of BIM adoption in improving safety environment of
construction projects. J. Teknol. 78 https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v78.5866.
Sadeghi, H., Mohandes, S.R., Hosseini, M.R., Banihashemi, S., Mahdiyar, A.,
Abdullah, A., 2020. Developing an ensemble predictive safety risk assessment
model: case of Malaysian construction projects. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health
17, 1e25. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228395.
Sanni-Anibire, M.O., Mahmoud, A.S., Hassanain, M.A., Salami, B.A., 2020. A risk
assessment approach for enhancing construction safety performance. Saf. Sci.
121, 15e29.
Shafique, M., Rafiq, M., 2019. An overview of construction occupational accidents in
Hong Kong: a recent trend and future perspectives. Appl. Sci. 9, 2069.
Shepherd, G.W., Kahler, R.J., Cross, J., 2000. Crane fatalities - a taxonomic analysis.
Saf. Sci. 36, 83e93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00017-5.
Shin, I.J., 2015. Factors that affect safety of tower crane installation/dismantling in
construction industry. Saf. Sci. 72, 379e390. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ssci.2014.10.010.
Silla, I., Navajas, J., Koves, G.K., 2017. Organizational culture and a safety-conscious
work environment: the mediating role of employee communication satisfac-
tion. J. Saf. Res. 61, 121e127.
Sousa, V., Almeida, N.M., Dias, L.A., 2015. Risk-based management of occupational
safety and health in the construction industry - Part 2: quantitative model. Saf.
Sci. 74, 184e194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.01.003.
Sui, Y., Ding, R., Wang, H., 2020. A novel approach for occupational health and safety
and environment risk assessment for nuclear power plant construction project.
24
Journal of Cleaner Production 291 (2021) 125934
J. Clean. Prod., 120945
Sun, C.-C., 2010. A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and
fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Syst. Appl. 37, 7745e7754.
Tadi
c, S., Ze

cevi
c, S., Krsti
c, M., 2014. A novel hybrid MCDM model based on fuzzy
DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy VIKOR for city logistics concept selection.
Expert Syst. Appl. 41, 8112e8128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.07.021.
Tam, C.M., Zeng, S.X., Deng, Z.M., 2004. Identifying elements of poor construction
safety management in China. Saf. Sci. 42, 569e586.
Tixier, A.J.P., Hallowell, M.R., Rajagopalan, B., 2017. Construction safety risk
modeling and simulation. Risk Anal. 37, 1917e1935. https://doi.org/10.1111/
risa.12772.
Wang, Y.M., Chin, K.S., 2011. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: a logarithmic fuzzy
preference programming methodology. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 52, 541e553.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2010.12.004.
Wang, Q., Wang, H., Qi, Z., 2016. An application of nonlinear fuzzy analytic hierarchy
process in safety evaluation of coal mine. Saf. Sci. 86, 78e87. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ssci.2016.02.012.
Wu, T.-C., Lin, C.-H., Shiau, S.-Y., 2010. Predicting safety culture: the roles of
employer, operations manager and safety professional. J. Saf. Res. 41, 423e431.
Xu, Z., Zayed, T., Niu, Y., 2020. Comparative analysis of modular construction
practices in mainland China, Hong Kong and Singapore. J. Clean. Prod. 245,
118861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118861.
Yazdi, M., 2018. Risk assessment based on novel intuitionistic fuzzy-hybrid-
modified TOPSIS approach. Saf. Sci. 110, 438e448. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ssci.2018.03.005.
Yu, C., Shao, Y., Wang, K., Zhang, L., 2019. A group decision making sustainable
supplier selection approach using extended TOPSIS under interval-valued Py-
thagorean fuzzy environment. Expert Syst. Appl. 121, 1e17. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eswa.2018.12.010.
Zeng, S.X., Tam, C.M., Tam, V.W.Y., 2010. Integrating safety, environmental and
quality risks for project management using a FMEA method. Eng. Econ. 21,
44e52. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.66.1.11645.
Zhang, X., Mohandes, S.R., 2020. Occupational Health and Safety in green building
construction projects : a holistic Z-numbers-based risk management frame-
work. J. Clean. Prod. 275, 122788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122788.
Zhao, X., Hwang, B.-G., Gao, Y., 2016. A fuzzy synthetic evaluation approach for risk
assessment: a case of Singapore’s green projects. J. Clean. Prod. 115, 203e213.
Zheng, G., Zhu, N., Tian, Z., Chen, Y., Sun, B., 2012. Application of a trapezoidal fuzzy
AHP method for work safety evaluation and early warning rating of hot and
humid environments. Saf. Sci. 50, 228e239. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ssci.2011.08.042.