IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i23p15669-d983433.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Model Proposal for Occupational Health and Safety Performance Measurement in Geothermal Drilling Areas

Author

Listed:
  • Şebnem Karul Tonka

    (Occupational Health and Safety Program, Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Istanbul Commerce University, Istanbul 34854, Turkey)

  • Ismail Ekmekci

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Istanbul Commerce University, Istanbul 34854, Turkey)

Abstract

The energy sources required for general development and maintenance cause environmental pollution due to the carbon emissions released into the atmosphere. For these reasons, countries have turned to renewable energy sources. Energy production methods also cause serious problems in terms of the health and safety of employees. This study aimed to create an occupational health and safety performance model in geothermal energy fields, which generate renewable energy sources, using multi-criteria decision-making methods. A two-stage model was created for OHS performance index measurement. In the first stage, a literature screening was performed, risk analysis criteria were examined, and performance measurement criteria were determined with geophysical engineers and OHS experts. Seven main criteria and forty-seven subcriteria were set. An analytical hierarchy process method (AHP) and a fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (F-AHP) using the main criteria and subcriteria were determined. In the second stage, exposure rates were obtained using the Promethee method in three geothermal wells. The risks in these three wells are listed according to their importance. A performance model was created. The Results section includes conclusions and suggestions. This study, by creating an OHS performance model, can be used by managers and OHS professionals working in geothermal energy production fields to solve problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Şebnem Karul Tonka & Ismail Ekmekci, 2022. "A Model Proposal for Occupational Health and Safety Performance Measurement in Geothermal Drilling Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-24, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:23:p:15669-:d:983433
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/15669/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/15669/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. G.S. Beriha & B. Patnaik & S.S. Mahapatra & Sreekumar, 2011. "Occupational health and safety management using grey relational analysis: an Indian perspective," International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 4(3), pages 298-324.
    2. J. P. Brans & Ph. Vincke, 1985. "Note---A Preference Ranking Organisation Method," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 647-656, June.
    3. Sedef E. Kara & Mustapha D. Ibrahim & Sahand Daneshvar, 2021. "Dual Efficiency and Productivity Analysis of Renewable Energy Alternatives of OECD Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-14, July.
    4. Chang, Da-Yong, 1996. "Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 649-655, December.
    5. Saaty, Thomas L. & Vargas, Luis G., 1987. "Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 107-117, October.
    6. Rafikul Islam & Thomas L. Saaty, 2010. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process in the Transportation Sector," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, in: Matthias Ehrgott & Boris Naujoks & Theodor J. Stewart & Jyrki Wallenius (ed.), Multiple Criteria Decision Making for Sustainable Energy and Transportation Systems, pages 79-91, Springer.
    7. Farooq Sher & Oliver Curnick & Mohammad Tazli Azizan, 2021. "Sustainable Conversion of Renewable Energy Sources," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-4, March.
    8. Saaty, Thomas L., 1994. "Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 426-447, 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. Ali Bahadır Küçükarslan & Mustafa Köksal & Ismail Ekmekci, 2023. "A Model Proposal for Measuring Performance in Occupational Health and Safety in Forest Fires," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-19, October.
    2. Levary, Reuven R. & Wan, Ke, 1999. "An analytic hierarchy process based simulation model for entry mode decision regarding foreign direct investment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 661-677, December.
    3. Paweł Karczmarek & Witold Pedrycz & Adam Kiersztyn, 2021. "Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Graphical Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 463-481, April.
    4. Yibin Zhang & Kevin W. Li & Zhou-Jing Wang, 2017. "Prioritization and Aggregation of Intuitionistic Preference Relations: A Multiplicative-Transitivity-Based Transformation from Intuitionistic Judgment Data to Priority Weights," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 409-436, March.
    5. Leung, L. C. & Cao, D., 2000. "On consistency and ranking of alternatives in fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 102-113, July.
    6. Elham Amini & Mohammad Baniasadi & Hossein Vahidi & Hossein Nematollahi & Mehrdad Khatami & Mozafar Amandadi & Leila Malekyan & Hamid Safarpour, 2020. "Affecting Factors of Knowledge-Based Companies Using Fuzzy AHP Model, Case Study Tehran University Enterprise Park," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(2), pages 574-592, June.
    7. Khalid Aljohani & Russell G. Thompson, 2018. "A Stakeholder-Based Evaluation of the Most Suitable and Sustainable Delivery Fleet for Freight Consolidation Policies in the Inner-City Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-27, December.
    8. Bui, Nuong Thi & Kawamura, Akira & Kim, Kyoung Woong & Prathumratana, Lunchakorn & Kim, Tae-Heok & Yoon, Suk-Ho & Jang, Min & Amaguchi, Hideo & Bui, Duong Du & Truong, Ngoc Tu, 2017. "Proposal of an indicator-based sustainability assessment framework for the mining sector of APEC economies," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 405-417.
    9. Shubham Gupta & Raghav Khanna & Pranay Kohli & Sarthak Agnihotri & Umang Soni & M. Asjad, 2023. "Risk evaluation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure using Fuzzy AHP – a case study in India," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 245-258, March.
    10. Fatih Tüysüz, 2018. "Simulated Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Sets-Based Approach for Modeling Uncertainty in AHP Method," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(03), pages 801-817, May.
    11. Levary, Reuven R. & Wan, Ke, 1998. "A simulation approach for handling uncertainty in the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 116-122, April.
    12. Fanyong Meng & Xiaohong Chen, 2018. "A robust additive consistency-based method for decision making with triangular fuzzy reciprocal preference relations," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 49-73, March.
    13. Liqi Yi & Tao Li & Xiangyi Wang & Gentana Ge & Ting Zhang, 2022. "Corporate social responsibility performance evaluation from the perspective of stakeholder heterogeneity based on fuzzy analytical hierarchy process integrated TOPSIS," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(4), pages 918-935, July.
    14. Ehsan Khanmohammadi & Mostafa Zandieh & Talieh Tayebi, 2019. "Drawing a Strategy Canvas Using the Fuzzy Best–Worst Method," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 20(1), pages 57-75, March.
    15. Madjid Tavana & Kaveh Khalili-Damghani & Rahman Rahmatian, 2015. "A hybrid fuzzy MCDM method for measuring the performance of publicly held pharmaceutical companies," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 589-621, March.
    16. Benyou Jia & Slobodan P. Simonovic & Pingan Zhong & Zhongbo Yu, 2016. "A Multi-Objective Best Compromise Decision Model for Real-Time Flood Mitigation Operations of Multi-Reservoir System," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(10), pages 3363-3387, August.
    17. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    18. Jiang, Yanping & Liang, Xia & Liang, Haiming & Yang, Ningman, 2018. "Multiple criteria decision making with interval stochastic variables: A method based on interval stochastic dominance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(2), pages 632-643.
    19. Mohammed A. Al-Ghamdi & Khalid S. Al-Gahtani, 2022. "Integrated Value Engineering and Life Cycle Cost Modeling for HVAC System Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-30, February.
    20. Pasura Aungkulanon & Walailak Atthirawong & Pongchanun Luangpaiboon & Wirachchaya Chanpuypetch, 2024. "Navigating Supply Chain Resilience: A Hybrid Approach to Agri-Food Supplier Selection," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-42, May.

    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:23:p:15669-:d:983433. 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.