Risk Değerlendirme Metotlarının İnşaat Sektöründe İş Güvenliği Kapsamında Karşılaştırılması

Abstract

İş sağlığı ve güvenliği (İSG) iş kazalarının ve meslek hastalıklarının en düşük seviyeye indirgemeyi amaçlayan geçmişi insanlık tarihi ile paralel olan bir kavramdır. İşçinin sağlık, güvenlik ve refahı iş güvenliği kapsamındadır. İnsanoğlu geçmişten günümüze hayatını idame ettirebilmek adına iş yapmak mecburiyetinde kalmıştır. Yapılacak işler yapısı ve yerleşkesi itibariyle belirli veya belirsiz riskler barındırmaktadır. İSG temelinde bu risklerin minimum seviyede kalması için alınması gereken aksiyonları araştırmaktadır. Mesleki tehlikelere maruz kalan işçilerin işle ilgili hastalık ve yaralanma geliştirme riski daha yüksektir. Risk değerlendirmesi çalışan ve işverenin maruz kaldığı risklerin belirlenmesi ve değerlendirilmesi açısından en önemli yapılardan birisidir. Nicel ve nitel olmak üzere iki kategoriye ayrılan risk değerlendirme metotlarının iş sağlığı ve güvenliği kapsamında karşılaştırılmaları de detaylı analizlerini içeren çalışmada metodolojiler arasındaki farklılıklar ortaya konulmuş, buna bağlı olarak da uygulama aşamasında yapılması gerekenler ortaya konulmuştur. İş güvenliği risk değerlendirmesi işyerinde risk kontrolünün uygulanması, mesleki faaliyetler ve işçi sağlığının korunması adına zorunlu niteliktedir. İşveren bu çalışmayı kendi bünyesinde yapabileceği gibi dışarıdan hizmet alarak da yaptırabilir. Bu çalışmanın amacı; iş sağlığı ve güvenliği açısından ortaya çıkabilecek tehlike ve risklerin analizinde kullanılan risk değerlendirme yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması ve sonucunda alınması gereken önlemlerin belirlenmesinde etkinliklerini değerlendirmektir.

Keywords

• İnşaat,Tehlike Önleme,İş güvenliği,Risk Değerlendirmesi

Comparison of Risk Assessment Methods within the Scope of Occupational Safety in the Construction Sector

Abstract

Occupational health and safety (OHS) history dates back to ancient human history due to a decrease the occupational accidents and diseases. Human is obliged to do work in order to sustain life. The works in general consist of the works done with body strength. OHS is a basis to reduce occupational accidents in an acceptable level, and it covers employee health, safety, and welfare in the workplace. There are certain or uncertain risks in terms of workplace structure and location. OHS investigates the actions to be taken to minimize these risks on the basis of workplace safety. Workers exposed to occupational hazards have a higher risk of developing work-related illnesses and injuries. Risk assessment is one of the most important structures in terms of identifying and evaluating the risks to which the employee and employer are exposed. Comparisons of risk assessment methods, which are divided into two categories as quantitative and qualitative, in the scope of occupational health and safety and the detailed analysis of the study, the differences between the methodologies have been revealed and accordingly, the and the necessary applications have been put forward. Occupational safety risk assessment is mandatory for the implementation of risk control in the workplace, professional activities and protection of worker health. The employer can carry out this work in-house or by taking external services. The aim of this study is to compare the risk assessment methods used in the analysis of hazards and risks that may arise in terms of occupational health and safety and to evaluate their effectiveness in determining the measures to be taken as a result.

Keywords

• Construction,Hazard Prevention,Occupational Safety,Risk Assessment

References

1. Gul M and Guneri AF. (2016). A fuzzy multi-criteria risk assessment based on decision matrix technique: A case study for the aluminum industry. J Loss Prev Process Ind 40:89-100.
2. Ozdemir, Y., Basligil, H., & Ak, M. F. (2016). Airport Safety Risk Evaluation Based On Fuzzy Anp And Fuzzy Ahp. Uncertainty Modelling in Knowledge Engineering and Decision Making.
3. Guneri AF, Gul M, and Ozgurler S. (2015). A fuzzy AHP methodology for selection of risk assessment.
4. Waehrer, G. M., Dong, X. S., Miller, T., Haile, E., Men, Y. Costs of occupational injuries in the construction in the United States. Accident Analysis & Prevention 39(6) (2007) 1258–1266.
5. Gul, M., & Ak, M. F. (2018). A comparative outline for quantifying risk ratings in occupational health and safety risk assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 653-664.
6. Gul M, Celik E, Aydin N, et al. (2016). A state of the art literature review of VIKOR and its fuzzy extensions on applications. Appl Soft Comput 46:60–89.
7. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
8. Başağa H.B., Temel B.A., Atasoy M., Yildirim İ., "A study on the effectiveness of occupational health and safety trainings of construction workers in Turkey", SAFETY SCIENCE, vol.110, pp.344-354, 2018

9. Samantra, C., Datta, S., & Mahapatra, S.S. (2014). Risk assessment in IT outsourcing using fuzzy decision-making approach: An Indian perspective. Expert Syst. Appl., 41, 4010-4022.
10. Nieto-Morote, A., & Ruz-Vila, F. (2011). A fuzzy approach to construction project risk assessment. International Journal of Project Management, 29(2), 220–231. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.02.002
11. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, Zenonas Turskis & Jolanta Tamošaitiene (2010) Risk assessment of construction projects, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 16:1, 33-46, DOI: 10.3846/jcem.2010.03
12. Taylan, O., Bafail, A.O., Abdulaal, R.M., & Kabli, M.R. (2014). Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Appl. Soft Comput., 17, 105-116.
13. Goker, N., Dursun, M., & Albayrak, Y. E. (2019). Agile Supplier Evaluation Using a Fuzzy Decision Making Procedure Based on Fuzzy Measure and Fuzzy Integral. Intelligent and Fuzzy Techniques in Big Data Analytics and Decision Making Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 457–463.
14. Ksenija, M., Boris, D., Snezana, K., Sladjana, B. (2017). Analysis of the efficiency of insurance companies in Serbia using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods. Economic Research 30(1), 550-565.
15. A. Ahmed, “Composite FMEA for risk assessment in the construction project based on the integration of the conventional FMEA with the method of pairwise comparison and markov chain”, M.S. thesis, School of Industrial and Information Engineering, Politecnico Di Milano, Milan, Italy, 2014.
16. Aminbakhsh, S., Gunduz, M., & Sonmez, R. (2013). Safety risk assessment using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) during planning and budgeting of construction projects. Journal of Safety Research, 46, 99–105.
17. Shin, D. , Shin, Y. and Kim, G. (2016) Comparison of Risk Assessment for a Nuclear Power Plant Construction Project Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process and Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. Journal of Building Construction and Planning Research, 4, 157-171. doi: 10.4236/jbcpr.2016.43010.
18. Karimi Azari, A., Mousavi, N., Mousavi, S. F., & Hosseini, S. (2011). Risk assessment model selection in the construction industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 9105 -9111.
19. Turskis, Z.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Peldschus, F. 2009. Multi-criteria optimization system for decision making in the construction design and management, Inzinerine Ekonomika – Engineering Economics (1): 7–15.
20. Gul M, Guven B, Guneri AF (2018b) A new Fine-Kinney-based risk assessment framework using FAHP-FVIKOR incorporation. J Loss Prevent Proc 53:3–16
21. Gul, M., Ak, M. F., & Guneri, A. F. (2016). Occupational health and safety risk assessment in hospitals: A case study using a two-stage fuzzy multi-criteria approach. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 23(2), 187–202.
22. Unsar, S., Necdet, S. General assessment of the occupational accidents that occurred in Turkey between the years 2000 and 2005. Safety Science 47(5) (2009) 614–619.
23. Ozdemir, Y., Basligil, H., & Ak, M. F. (2016). Airport Safety Risk Evaluation Based On Fuzzy Anp and Fuzzy Ahp. Uncertainty Modelling in Knowledge Engineering and Decision Making.
24. Zadeh, L. A. (1975). The Concept of a Linguistic Variable and its Application to Approximate Reasoning-I. Information sciences: 8: 199-249.
25. Saaty TL. 1990. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48(1):9–26 Tzeng GH and Huang JJ. 2011. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL
26. 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. Safety Science,103, 124-136. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2017.10.025
27. Karasan, A., Ilbahar, E., Cebi, S., & Kahraman, C. (2018). A new risk assessment approach: Safety and Critical Effect Analysis (SCEA) and its extension with Pythagorean fuzzy sets. Safety Science,108, 173-187. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2018.04.031
28. Wang, W., Liu, X., Qin, Y., & Fu, Y. (2018). A risk evaluation and prioritization method for FMEA with prospect theory and Choquet integral. Safety Science,110, 152-163. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2018.08.009
29. Dağsuyu, C., Göçmen, E., Narlı, M., & Kokangül, A. (2016). Classical and fuzzy FMEA risk analysis in a sterilization unit. Computers & Industrial Engineering,101, 286-294. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2016.09.015
30. Mohammadi, A.; Tavakolan, M. Construction project risk assessment using combined fuzzy and FMEA. In Proceedings of the 2013 Joint IFSA World Congress and NAFIPS Annual Meeting, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 24–28 June 2013; pp. 232–237.
31. Fattahi, R., & Khalilzadeh, M. (2018). Risk evaluation using a novel hybrid method based on FMEA, extended MULTIMOORA, and AHP methods under fuzzy environment. Safety Science,102, 290-300. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2017.10.018
32. Hwang, C.-L., Yoon, K., 2012. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications a State-of-the-art Survey. Springer Science & Business Media, pp. 186.
33. Pinto, A. (2014). QRAM a Qualitative Occupational Safety Risk Assessment Model for the construction industry that incorporate uncertainties by the use of fuzzy sets. Safety Science, 63, 57-76. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2013.10.019
34. Yürek, K , Ersöz Kaya, İ . (2019). Yol İnşaatı Şantiyelerinde Ergonomik Risk Değerlendirmesi. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi , (17) , 1357-1366 . DOI: 10.31590/ejosat.667469
35. Gudienė, N., Banaitis, A., Podvezko, V., & Banaitienė, N. (2014). Identification and evaluation of the critical success factors for construction projects in Lithuania: AHP approach. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 20, 350–359.
36. Pourrat M, Delescluse C, Merlin S, Sauvion S, Carret S, Fontan JE. Oraladministration of medications to infants: implementation of a prelimi-nary risk analysis in a hospital service of pediatrics.Ann Pharm Fr.2014;72(2):112‐121.
37. Gong, L., Zhang, S., Tang, P., and Feng, Y., Implication of Mishaps to Preliminary Hazard Analysis of Hypersonic Vehicles. Procedia Engineering,Volume 80, (2014), pp. 437-444.