Volume 21, Issue 1 (2024)
ioh 2024, 21(1): 379-393 |
Back to browse issues page
Research code: 24751
Ethics code: IR.IUMS.REC.1401.923
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Molamehdizadeh N, Halvani G, Farshad A A, Kharghani Moghadam S M, Ebrahimi H. Investigating and Prioritizing the Root Causes of Safety Challenges from the Perspectives of Safety Experts, Supervisors, and Employees Using the FAHP Approach (Case Study: An Iron Ore Mine). ioh 2024; 21 (1) :379-393
URL: http://ioh.iums.ac.ir/article-1-3664-en.html
URL: http://ioh.iums.ac.ir/article-1-3664-en.html
Neda Molamehdizadeh 
, Gholamhossein Halvani , Ali Asghar Farshad , Seyedeh Melika Kharghani Moghadam , Hossein Ebrahimi *
, Gholamhossein Halvani , Ali Asghar Farshad , Seyedeh Melika Kharghani Moghadam , Hossein Ebrahimi *
Iran University of Medical Sciences , hossein.ebrahimi@yahoo.com
Abstract: (1274 Views)
Introduction: Multiple safety challenges exist in mines. Therefore, using decision-making methods that can understand and model various perspectives and human experiences is of great importance. This study aims to investigate and prioritize the root causes of safety challenges from the perspectives of safety experts, supervisors, and employees in a mine.
Material and method: This was a descriptive-analytical study which conducted in an iron ore mine. The study was carried out in two stages. In the first stage, five factors—management, human, machinery, environment, and materials—were identified as the root causes of mining safety challenges. In the second stage, these causes were prioritized using the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) method and expert opinions.
Results: The study results showed that the relative importance of the root causes of safety challenges varied from different perspectives. Safety experts gave the highest weight to the management factor (0.52), supervisors to the human factor (0.47), and employees to the machinery factor (0.37).
Conclusion: The study's results indicated that each group has different perspectives on the factors affecting safety based on their experiences and roles within the organization. If these differences are properly managed and coordinated, they can be used as opportunities to enhance safety. However, if ignored, they may lead to serious problems.
Material and method: This was a descriptive-analytical study which conducted in an iron ore mine. The study was carried out in two stages. In the first stage, five factors—management, human, machinery, environment, and materials—were identified as the root causes of mining safety challenges. In the second stage, these causes were prioritized using the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) method and expert opinions.
Results: The study results showed that the relative importance of the root causes of safety challenges varied from different perspectives. Safety experts gave the highest weight to the management factor (0.52), supervisors to the human factor (0.47), and employees to the machinery factor (0.37).
Conclusion: The study's results indicated that each group has different perspectives on the factors affecting safety based on their experiences and roles within the organization. If these differences are properly managed and coordinated, they can be used as opportunities to enhance safety. However, if ignored, they may lead to serious problems.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Safety
Received: 2024/06/3 | Accepted: 2024/09/10 | Published: 2024/05/30
Received: 2024/06/3 | Accepted: 2024/09/10 | Published: 2024/05/30
References
1. Ghassa, S. A review on epidemic illnesses between miners and available laws to prevention from them. 2017.
2. Bagherpour R, Yarahmadi R, Khademian A, Almasi SN. Safety survey of Iran's mines and comparison to some other countries. International journal of injury control and safety promotion. 2017;24(1):3-9. [DOI:10.1080/17457300.2015.1047860] [PMID]
3. Yarahmadi R, Bagherpour R, Khademian A. Safety risk assessment of Iran's dimension stone quarries (Exploited by diamond wire cutting method). Safety Science. 2014;63:146-50. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2013.11.003]
4. Dodgson M, Vandermark S. The challenges and opportunities of globalization and innovation in the minerals industry. R & D Enterprise: Asia Pacific. 2000;3(4):3-15. [DOI:10.5172/impp.2000.3.4.3]
5. Patterson JM, Shappell SA. Operator error and system deficiencies: analysis of 508 mining incidents and accidents from Queensland, Australia using HFACS. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2010;42(4):1379-85. [DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2010.02.018] [PMID]
6. Liu R, Cheng W, Yu Y, Xu Q. Human factors analysis of major coal mine accidents in China based on the HFACS-CM model and AHP method. International journal of industrial ergonomics. 2018;68:270-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2018.08.009]
7. Ghasemi R, Abedinlou R, Alimohammadi I, Abolghasemi J, Ebrahimi V, Rahimi J, et al. The relationship between emotional intelligence, personality traits and safety behaviors in metal industries workers: Confirmatory factor analysis. Work. 2021;70(3):909-15. [DOI:10.3233/WOR-213610] [PMID]
8. Onifade M, Said KO, Shivute AP. Safe mining operations through technological advancement. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. 2023;175:251-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.psep.2023.05.052]
9. Rahimi E, Shekarian Y, Shekarian N, Roghanchi P. Accident Analysis of Mining Industry in the United States-A retrospective study for 36 years. Journal of Sustainable Mining. 2022;21(1):27-44. [DOI:10.46873/2300-3960.1345]
10. Bonsu J, Van Dyk W, Franzidis J, Petersen F, Isafiade A. A systemic study of mining accident causality: an analysis of 91 mining accidents from a platinum mine in South Africa. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. 2017;117(1):59-66. [DOI:10.17159/2411-9717/2017/v117n1a9]
11. Arezes PM, Miguel AS. Risk perception and safety behaviour: A study in an occupational environment. Safety science. 2008;46(6):900-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.11.008]
12. Zohar D. Thirty years of safety climate research: Reflections and future directions. Accident analysis & prevention. 2010;42(5):1517-22. [DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2009.12.019] [PMID]
13. Labodová A. Implementing integrated management systems using a risk analysis based approach. Journal of cleaner production. 2004;12(6):571-80. [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.08.008]
14. Vinodkumar M, Bhasi M. Safety management practices and safety behaviour: Assessing the mediating role of safety knowledge and motivation. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2010;42(6):2082-93. [DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2010.06.021] [PMID]
15. Dolan E, Lees B, Sheu C. Safety climate and safety behaviors in the construction industry: The importance of workers' perceptions. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2015;81:243-51.
16. Saaty TL. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International journal of services sciences. 2008;1(1):83-98. [DOI:10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590]
17. Schuh C, editor Fuzzy sets and their application in medicine. NAFIPS 2005-2005 Annual Meeting of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society; 2005: IEEE.
18. Sitorus F, Cilliers JJ, Brito-Parada PR. Multi-criteria decision making for the choice problem in mining and mineral processing: Applications and trends. Expert systems with applications. 2019;121:393-417. [DOI:10.1016/j.eswa.2018.12.001]
19. Mohammadi H, Laal F, Mohammadian F, Yari P, Kangavari M, Hanifi SM. Dynamic risk assessment of storage tank using consequence modeling and fuzzy Bayesian network. Heliyon. 2023;9(8). [DOI:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18842] [PMID] []
20. Mahdinia M, Mohammadfam I, Soltanzadeh A, Aliabadi MM, Aghaei H. A fuzzy Bayesian network DEMATEL model for predicting safety behavior. International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics. 2023;29(1):36-43. [DOI:10.1080/10803548.2021.2015741] [PMID]
21. Chang D-Y. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European journal of operational research. 1996;95(3):649-55. [DOI:10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2]
22. Skinner R, Nelson RR, Chin WW, Land L. The Delphi method research strategy in studies of information systems. Commun Assoc Inf Syst. 2015;37:31-63. [DOI:10.17705/1CAIS.03702]
23. Somerville JA. Effective Use of the Delphi Process in Research: Its Characteristics, Strengths and Limitations 1. Oregon State Univ. 2008;2007:1-11.
24. Soltani A, Marandi EZ. Hospital site selection using two-stage fuzzy multi-criteria decision making process. Journal of Urban and environmental engineering. 2011;5(1):32-43. [DOI:10.4090/juee.2011.v5n1.032043]
25. Gogus O, Boucher TO. Strong transitivity, rationality and weak monotonicity in fuzzy pairwise comparisons. Fuzzy sets and systems. 1998;94(1):133-44. [DOI:10.1016/S0165-0114(96)00184-4]
26. Grote G. Safety management in different high-risk domains-all the same? Safety science. 2012;50(10):1983-92. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2011.07.017]
27. Zohar D. Modifying supervisory practices to improve subunit safety: a leadership-based intervention model. Journal of Applied psychology. 2002;87(1):156. [DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.156] [PMID]
28. Reason J. Human error: models and management. Bmj. 2000;320(7237):768-70. [DOI:10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768] [PMID] []
29. Shappell SA, Wiegmann DA. The human factors analysis and classification system--HFACS. 2000. [DOI:10.1037/e420582004-001]
30. Hoek E, Brown ET. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. International journal of rock mechanics and mining sciences. 1997;34(8):1165-86. [DOI:10.1016/S1365-1609(97)80069-X]
31. Witter RZ, Tenney L, Clark S, Newman LS. Occupational exposures in the oil and gas extraction industry: State of the science and research recommendations. American journal of industrial medicine. 2014;57(7):847-56. [DOI:10.1002/ajim.22316] [PMID] []
32. Groves W, Kecojevic V, Komljenovic D. Analysis of fatalities and injuries involving mining equipment. Journal of safety research. 2007;38(4):461-70. [DOI:10.1016/j.jsr.2007.03.011] [PMID]
33. Donoghue AM. Occupational health hazards in mining: an overview. Occupational medicine. 2004;54(5):283-9. [DOI:10.1093/occmed/kqh072] [PMID]
34. Hustrulid WA, Bullock RL. Underground mining methods: Engineering fundamentals and international case studies: SME; 2001.
35. Wang C, Wang J, Wang X, Yu H, Bai L, Sun Q. Exploring the impacts of factors contributing to unsafe behavior of coal miners. Safety science. 2019;115:339-48. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2019.02.003]
36. Hallegatte S, Shah A, Brown C, Lempert R, Gill S. Investment decision making under deep uncertainty--application to climate change. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. 2012(6193).
37. Walker WE, Harremoës P, Rotmans J, Van Der Sluijs JP, Van Asselt MB, Janssen P, et al. Defining uncertainty: a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integrated assessment. 2003;4(1):5-17. [DOI:10.1076/iaij.4.1.5.16466]
38. Acharya NK, Dai Lee Y, Man Im H. Conflicting factors in construction projects: Korean perspective. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 2006;13(6):543-66. [DOI:10.1108/09699980610712364]
39. Clarke S. Perceptions of organizational safety: implications for the development of safety culture. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1999;20(2):185-98.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199903)20:2<185::AID-JOB892>3.0.CO;2-C [DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199903)20:23.0.CO;2-C]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
