IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i15p9373-d876965.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Occupational Risk Assessment for Flight Schools: A 3,4-Quasirung Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making-Based Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Muhammet Gul

    (Department of Transportation and Logistics, Istanbul University, 34320 Istanbul, Turkey)

  • Muhammet Fatih Ak

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Antalya Bilim University, 07190 Antalya, Turkey)

Abstract

The concept of occupational risk assessment is related to the analysis and prioritization of the hazards arising in a production or service facility and the risks associated with these hazards; risk assessment considers occupational health and safety (OHS). Elimination or reduction to an acceptable level of analyzed risks, which is a systematic and proactive process, is then put into action. Although fuzzy logic-related decision models related to the assessment of these risks have been developed and applied a lot in the literature, there is an opportunity to develop novel occupational risk assessment models depending on the development of new fuzzy logic extensions. The 3,4-quasirung fuzzy set (3,4-QFS) is a new type of fuzzy set theory emerged as an extension of the Pythagorean fuzzy sets and Fermatean fuzzy sets. In this approach, the sum of the cube of the degree of membership and the fourth power of the degree of non-membership must be less than or equal to 1. Since this new approach has a wider space, it can express uncertain information in a more flexible and exhaustive way. This makes this type of fuzzy set applicable in addressing many problems in multi-criteria decision making (MCDM). In this study, an occupational risk assessment approach based on 3,4-quasirung fuzzy MCDM is presented. Within the scope of the study, the hazards pertaining to the flight and ground training, training management, administrative and facilities in a flight school were assessed and prioritized. The results of existing studies were tested, and we considered both Pythagorean and Fermatean fuzzy aggregation operators. In addition, by an innovative sensitivity analysis, the effect of major changes in the weight of each risk parameter on the final priority score and ranking of the hazards was evaluated. The outcomes of this study are beneficial for OHS decision-makers by highlighting the most prioritized hazards causing serious occupational accidents in flights schools as part of aviation industry. The approach can also be suggested and adapted for production and service science environments where their occupational health & safety are highly required.

Suggested Citation

  • Muhammet Gul & Muhammet Fatih Ak, 2022. "Occupational Risk Assessment for Flight Schools: A 3,4-Quasirung Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making-Based Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-22, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:15:p:9373-:d:876965
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9373/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9373/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gianpaolo Di Bona & Alessandro Silvestri & Antonio Forcina & Antonella Petrillo, 2018. "Total efficient risk priority number (TERPN): a new method for risk assessment," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(11), pages 1384-1408, November.
    2. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    3. Mahdieh Delikhoon & Esmaeil Zarei & Osiris Valdez Banda & Mohammad Faridan & Ehsanollah Habibi, 2022. "Systems Thinking Accident Analysis Models: A Systematic Review for Sustainable Safety Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-28, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. James J. H. Liou & Perry C. Y. Liu & Huai-Wei Lo, 2020. "A Failure Mode Assessment Model Based on Neutrosophic Logic for Switched-Mode Power Supply Risk Analysis," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-19, December.
    2. Ilyas Mzougui & Zoubir El Felsoufi, 2021. "A modified method to improve failure analysis," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 12(2), pages 231-244, April.
    3. Alptekin Ulutaş & Ayşe Topal & Dragan Pamučar & Željko Stević & Darjan Karabašević & Gabrijela Popović, 2022. "A New Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Sustainable Supplier Selection Based on a Novel Grey WISP and Grey BWM Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-20, December.
    4. Junnan Wu & Xin Liu & Dianqi Pan & Yichen Zhang & Jiquan Zhang & Kai Ke, 2023. "Research on Safety Evaluation of Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Based on Improved Best-Worst Method and Fuzzy Comprehensive Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, May.
    5. Zarei, Esmaeil & Khan, Faisal & Abbassi, Rouzbeh, 2021. "Importance of human reliability in process operation: A critical analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    6. Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Ramin Bazrafshan & Fatih Ecer & Çağlar Karamaşa, 2022. "The Suitability-Feasibility-Acceptability Strategy Integrated with Bayesian BWM-MARCOS Methods to Determine the Optimal Lithium Battery Plant Located in South America," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(14), pages 1-18, July.
    7. Paul, Ananna & Shukla, Nagesh & Trianni, Andrea, 2023. "Modelling supply chain sustainability challenges in the food processing sector amid the COVID-19 outbreak," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PA).
    8. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    9. Pushparenu Bhattacharjee & Syed Abou Iltaf Hussain & V. Dey & U. K. Mandal, 2023. "Failure mode and effects analysis for submersible pump component using proportionate risk assessment model: a case study in the power plant of Agartala," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 14(5), pages 1778-1798, October.
    10. Dilupa Nakandala & Yung Po Tsang & Henry Lau & Carman Ka Man Lee, 2022. "An Industrial Blockchain-Based Multi-Criteria Decision Framework for Global Freight Management in Agricultural Supply Chains," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(19), pages 1-23, September.
    11. Martín-García, Jaime & Gómez-Limón, José A. & Arriaza, Manuel, 2024. "Conversion to organic farming: Does it change the economic and environmental performance of fruit farms?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    12. Zeng, Shouzhen & Zhou, Jiamin & Zhang, Chonghui & Merigó, José M., 2022. "Intuitionistic fuzzy social network hybrid MCDM model for an assessment of digital reforms of manufacturing industry in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    13. Salimi, Negin & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 147-155.
    14. Željko Stević & Irena Đalić & Dragan Pamučar & Zdravko Nunić & Slavko Vesković & Marko Vasiljević & Ilija Tanackov, 2019. "A new hybrid model for quality assessment of scientific conferences based on Rough BWM and SERVQUAL," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 1-30, April.
    15. Wu, Xingli & Liao, Huchang, 2021. "Modeling personalized cognition of customers in online shopping," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    16. Yuanxin Liu & FengYun Li & Yi Wang & Xinhua Yu & Jiahai Yuan & Yuwei Wang, 2018. "Assessing the Environmental Impact Caused by Power Grid Projects in High Altitude Areas Based on BWM and Vague Sets Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, May.
    17. Maghsoodi, Abtin Ijadi, 2023. "Cryptocurrency portfolio allocation using a novel hybrid and predictive big data decision support system," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    18. Kik, M.C. & Claassen, G.D.H. & Meuwissen, M.P.M. & Smit, A.B. & Saatkamp, H.W., 2021. "Actor analysis for sustainable soil management – A case study from the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    19. Ravindra Singh Saluja & Varinder Singh, 2023. "Attribute-based characterization, coding, and selection of joining processes using a novel MADM approach," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 60(2), pages 616-655, June.
    20. Huang, Beijia & Zhang, Long & Ma, Linmao & Bai, Wuliyasu & Ren, Jingzheng, 2021. "Multi-criteria decision analysis of China’s energy security from 2008 to 2017 based on Fuzzy BWM-DEA-AR model and Malmquist Productivity Index," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:15:p:9373-:d:876965. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.