IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i10p3950-d1390743.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Ergonomic Risks for Construction Workers Based on Multicriteria Decision Framework with the Integration of Spherical Fuzzy Set and Alternative Queuing Method

Author

Listed:
  • Yu Tao

    (State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, School of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China)

  • Hao Hu

    (State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, School of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China)

  • Jie Xue

    (State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, School of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China)

  • Zhipeng Zhang

    (State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, School of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China)

  • Feng Xu

    (State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, School of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China)

Abstract

Ergonomic risks critically impact workers’ occupational health, safety, and productivity, and thereby the sustainability of a workforce. In the construction industry, the physical demands and dynamic environment exposes workers to various ergonomic hazards. While previous research has mainly focused on postural risks, there is a need to broaden the scope to include more relevant factors and assess them systematically. This study introduces a multi-criteria decision framework integrating the Spherical Fuzzy Sets (SFSs) and Alternative Queuing Method (AQM) to evaluate and prioritize ergonomic hazards. First, SFSs are employed to quantify the linguistic expressions of experts, addressing the inherent vagueness and uncertainty. Then, an entropy-based objective weighting method is adopted to determine the criteria weights. Finally, AQM is utilized to generate the risk priority. The proposed method has been implemented in a real-life construction project, where “overexertion due to unreasonable task organization”, “hypertension and heart diseases”, and “existing WMSD record” are identified as the top three ergonomic hazards. Then, a thorough discussion of intervention strategies regarding different risk categories is presented to facilitate ergonomic interventions. This proposed decision support system can promote effective ergonomic risk management, benefiting workers’ health and well-being and contributing to the sustainable workforce development of the construction industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu Tao & Hao Hu & Jie Xue & Zhipeng Zhang & Feng Xu, 2024. "Evaluation of Ergonomic Risks for Construction Workers Based on Multicriteria Decision Framework with the Integration of Spherical Fuzzy Set and Alternative Queuing Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-20, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:10:p:3950-:d:1390743
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/10/3950/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/10/3950/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert T. Clemen & Robert L. Winkler, 1985. "Limits for the Precision and Value of Information from Dependent Sources," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 427-442, April.
    2. Shraddha Palikhe & Mi Yirong & Byoung Yoon Choi & Dong-Eun Lee, 2020. "Analysis of Musculoskeletal Disorders and Muscle Stresses on Construction Workers’ Awkward Postures Using Simulation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-13, July.
    3. Lucia Botti & Martina Calzavara & Cristina Mora, 2021. "Modelling job rotation in manufacturing systems with aged workers," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(8), pages 2522-2536, April.
    4. Wen Yi & Albert Chan, 2016. "Health Profile of Construction Workers in Hong Kong," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-15, December.
    5. Saeid Jafarzadeh Ghoushchi & Mohd Nizam Ab Rahman & Moein Soltanzadeh & Muhammad Zeeshan Rafique & Hernadewita & Fatemeh Yadegar Marangalo & Ahmad Rasdan Ismail, 2023. "Assessing Sustainable Passenger Transportation Systems to Address Climate Change Based on MCDM Methods in an Uncertain Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-22, February.
    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. A. E. Ades & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2006. "Evidence synthesis, parameter correlation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 373-381, April.
    2. Jaspersen, Johannes G., 2022. "Convex combinations in judgment aggregation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(2), pages 780-794.
    3. Robert L. Winkler & Robert T. Clemen, 2004. "Multiple Experts vs. Multiple Methods: Combining Correlation Assessments," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 167-176, September.
    4. Mark Freeman & Ben Groom, 2015. "Using equity premium survey data to estimate future wealth," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 45(4), pages 665-693, November.
    5. Gary J. Summers, 2021. "Friction and Decision Rules in Portfolio Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 101-120, June.
    6. Sunkuk Kim, 2021. "Technology and Management for Sustainable Buildings and Infrastructures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-3, August.
    7. Paola Monari & Patrizia Agati, 2001. "Fiducial inference in combining expert judgements," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 10(1), pages 81-97, January.
    8. Wang, Xiaoqian & Hyndman, Rob J. & Li, Feng & Kang, Yanfei, 2023. "Forecast combinations: An over 50-year review," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 1518-1547.
    9. Bian, Wenliang & Shang, Jennifer & Zhang, Juliang, 2016. "Two-way information sharing under supply chain competition," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 82-94.
    10. Elena Verdolini & Laura Díaz Anadón & Erin Baker & Valentina Bosetti & Lara Aleluia Reis, 2018. "Future Prospects for Energy Technologies: Insights from Expert Elicitations," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 133-153.
    11. Fumie Yokota & Kimberly M. Thompson, 2004. "Value of Information Analysis in Environmental Health Risk Management Decisions: Past, Present, and Future," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 635-650, June.
    12. Stewart, Thomas R. & Roebber, Paul J. & Bosart, Lance F., 1997. "The Importance of the Task in Analyzing Expert Judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 205-219, March.
    13. Vincenz Frey & Arnout van de Rijt, 2021. "Social Influence Undermines the Wisdom of the Crowd in Sequential Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 4273-4286, July.
    14. Debarun Bhattacharjya & Jo Eidsvik & Tapan Mukerji, 2013. "The Value of Information in Portfolio Problems with Dependent Projects," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 341-351, December.
    15. Joanne Wai-Yee Chung & Bonny Yee-Man Wong & Vincent Chun-Man Yan & Louisa Ming-Yan Chung & Henry Chi-Fuk So & Albert Chan, 2018. "Cardiovascular Health of Construction Workers in Hong Kong: A Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-20, June.
    16. Hurley, W. J. & Lior, D. U., 2002. "Combining expert judgment: On the performance of trimmed mean vote aggregation procedures in the presence of strategic voting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 142-147, July.
    17. James K. Hammitt & Alexander I. Shlyakhter, 1999. "The Expected Value of Information and the Probability of Surprise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 135-152, February.
    18. Debarun Bhattacharjya & Léa A. Deleris, 2014. "The Value of Information in Some Variations of the Stopping Problem," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 11(3), pages 189-203, September.
    19. Budescu, David V. & Rantilla, Adrian K. & Yu, Hsiu-Ting & Karelitz, Tzur M., 2003. "The effects of asymmetry among advisors on the aggregation of their opinions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 178-194, January.
    20. Li, Yongquan & Zhu, Kaijie, 2009. "Information acquisition in new product introduction," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 198(2), pages 618-625, October.

    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:16:y:2024:i:10:p:3950-:d:1390743. 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.