Optimizing safety-measure combinations to address construction risks

References

• Zhou Z, Goh YM, Li Q. Overview and analysis of safety management studies in the construction industry. Safety Sci. 2015;72:337–350. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2014.10.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallowell MR. A formal model of construction safety and health risk management [doctoral thesis]. Corvallis (OR): Oregon State University; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Soofifard R, Bafruei M. An optimal model for project risk response portfolio selection (P2RPS). Iranian J Manageme Stud. 2017;9(4):741–765.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Y. Selecting risk response strategies considering project risk interdependence. Int J Proj Manag. 2016;34(5):819–830. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheraghi E, Khalilzadeh M, Shojaei S, et al. A mathematical model to select the risk response strategies of the construction projects: case study of Saba Tower. Procedia Comput Sci. 2017;121:609–616. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.080
   Google Scholar
• Fang C, Marle F, Xie M, et al. An integrated framework for risk response planning under resource constraints in large engineering projects. IEEE T Eng Manage. 2013;60(3):627–639. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2013.2242078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talluri S, Kull TJ, Yildiz H, et al. Assessing the efficiency of risk mitigation strategies in supply chains. J Bus Logist. 2013;34(4):253–269. doi: 10.1111/jbl.12025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ameyaw EE, Hu Y, Shan M, et al. Application of Delphi method in construction engineering and management research: a quantitative perspective. J Civ Eng Manag. 2016;22(8):991–1000. doi: 10.3846/13923730.2014.945953
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sourani A, Sohail M. The Delphi method: review and use in construction management research. Int J Constr Educ Res. 2015;11(1):54–76. doi: 10.1080/15578771.2014.917132
   Google Scholar
• Esmaili-Dooki A, Bolhasani P, Fallah M. An integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS approach for ranking and selecting the chief inspectors of bank: a case study. J Appl Res Ind Eng. 2017;4(1):8–23. doi: 10.22105/jarie.2017.48258
   Google Scholar
• Kusumawardani RP, Agintiara M. Application of fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS method for decision making in human resource manager selection process. Procedia Comput Sci. 2015;72:638–646. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.173
   Google Scholar
• Li X, Wang K, Liu L, et al. Application of the entropy weight and TOPSIS method in safety evaluation of coal mines. Procedia Eng. 2011;26:2085–2091. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2410
   Google Scholar
• Ben-Arieh D, Chen Z. Linguistic-labels aggregation and consensus measure for autocratic decision making using group recommendations. IEEE T Syst Man Cy A. 2006;36(3):558–568. doi: 10.1109/TSMCA.2005.853488
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dong Y, Zhang H, Herrera-Viedma E. Integrating experts’ weights generated dynamically into the consensus reaching process and its applications in managing non-cooperative behaviors. Decis Support Syst. 2016;84:1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2016.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pérez IJ, Wikström R, Mezei J, et al. A new consensus model for group decision making using fuzzy ontology. Soft Comput. 2013;17(9):1617–1627. doi: 10.1007/s00500-012-0975-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He Y, Guo H, Jin M, et al. A linguistic entropy weight method and its application in linguistic multi-attribute group decision making. Nonlinear Dynam. 2016;84(1):399–404. doi: 10.1007/s11071-015-2595-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shemshadi A, Shirazi H, Toreihi M, et al. A fuzzy VIKOR method for supplier selection based on entropy measure for objective weighting. Expert Syst Appl. 2011;38(10):12160–12167. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.03.027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao K, Xuan A. Set pair theory – a new theory method of non-define and its applications. Syst Eng. 1996;14(1):18–23.
   Google Scholar
• Zhou J. SPA–fuzzy method based real-time risk assessment for major hazard installations storing flammable gas. Safety Sci. 2010;48(6):819–822. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2010.02.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zou Q, Zhou J, Zhou C, et al. Comprehensive flood risk assessment based on set pair analysis–variable fuzzy sets model and fuzzy AHP. Stoch Environ Res Risk A. 2013;27(2):525–546. doi: 10.1007/s00477-012-0598-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chong T, Yi S, Heng C. Application of set pair analysis method on occupational hazard of coal mining. Safety Sci. 2017;92:10–16. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2016.09.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garg H, Kumar K. An advanced study on the similarity measures of intuitionistic fuzzy sets based on the set pair analysis theory and their application in decision making. Soft Comput. 2018;22:4959–4970. doi: 10.1007/s00500-018-3202-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Su MR, Yang ZF, Chen B. Set pair analysis for urban ecosystem health assessment. Commun Nonlinear Sci. 2009;14(4):1773–1780. doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2007.07.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Jing H, Yu L, et al. Set pair analysis for risk assessment of water inrush in karst tunnels. B Eng Geol Environ. 2017;76(3):1199–1207. doi: 10.1007/s10064-016-0918-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Büyüközkan G, Çifçi G. A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers. Expert Syst Appl. 2012;39(3):3000–3011. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.08.162
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yüksel İ, Dagdeviren M. Using the analytic network process (ANP) in a SWOT analysis – a case study for a textile firm. Inform Sci. 2007;177:3364–3382. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2007.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behzadian M, Khanmohammadi Otaghsara S, Yazdani M, et al. A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Syst Appl. 2012;39(17):13051–13069. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joshi R, Banwet DK, Shankar R. A Delphi–AHP–TOPSIS based benchmarking framework for performance improvement of a cold chain. Expert Syst Appl. 2011;38(8):10170–10182. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.02.072
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen F, Wang J, Deng Y. Road safety risk evaluation by means of improved entropy TOPSIS–RSR. Safety Sci. 2015;79:39–54. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.05.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jozi SA, Shafiee M, MoradiMajd N, et al. An integrated Shannon’s entropy–TOPSIS methodology for environmental risk assessment of Helleh protected area in Iran. Environ Monit Assess. 2012;184(11):6913–6922. doi: 10.1007/s10661-011-2468-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang K-L, Liao S-K, Tseng T-W, et al. An ANP based TOPSIS approach for Taiwanese service apartment location selection. Asia Pac Manage Rev. 2015;20(2):49–55. doi: 10.1016/j.apmrv.2014.12.007
   Google Scholar
• Choobar FH, Nazari A, Rezaeenik E. Power plant project risk assessment using a fuzzy-ANP and fuzzy-TOPSIS method. Int J Eng. 2012;25(2):107–120.
   Google Scholar
• Garg H, Kumar K. A novel exponential distance and its based TOPSIS method for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets using connection number of SPA theory. Artif Intell Rev. 2020;53(1):595–624. doi: 10.1007/s10462-018-9668-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar K, Garg H. TOPSIS method based on the connection number of set pair analysis under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy set environment. Comput Appl Math. 2018;37(2):1319–1329. doi: 10.1007/s40314-016-0402-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuan J, Luo X. Regional energy security performance evaluation in China using MTGS and SPA–TOPSIS. Sci Total Environ. 2019;696:133817, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133817
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar K, Garg H. Connection number of set pair analysis based TOPSIS method on intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their application to decision making. Appl Intell. 2018;48(8):2112–2119. doi: 10.1007/s10489-017-1067-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruijters E, Stoelinga M. Fault tree analysis: a survey of the state-of-the-art in modeling, analysis and tools. Comput Sci Rev. 2015;15-16:29–62. doi: 10.1016/j.cosrev.2015.03.001
   Google Scholar
• Adamtey S, Onsarigo L. Analysis of pipe-bursting construction risks using probability-impact model. J Eng Des Technol. 2018;16(3):461–477. doi: 10.1108/JEDT-01-2018-0009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diakoulaki D, Mavrotas G, Papayannakis L. Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: the critic method. Comput Oper Res. 1995;22(7):763–770. doi: 10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang T-C, Lee H-D. Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights. Expert Syst App. 2009;36(5):8980–8985. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2008.11.035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai C, Chen X, Chen X, et al. A fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model for flood risk based on the combination weight of game theory. Nat Hazards. 2015;77(2):1243–1259. doi: 10.1007/s11069-015-1645-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Q. Dam risk consequence evaluation model based on set pair analysis [doctoral thesis]. Zhengzhou: Zhengzhou University; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Li DS. Research on system risk assessment based on general set pair analysis [doctoral thesis]. Shenyang: Northeastern University; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Brady SR. Utilizing and adapting the Delphi method for use in qualitative research. Int J Qual Method. 2015;14(5):1–6. doi: 10.1177/1609406915621381
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallowell MR, Gambatese JA. Qualitative research: application of the Delphi method to CEM research. J Constr Eng Manage. 2010;136(1):99–107. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben-David I, Raz T. An integrated approach for risk response development in project planning. J Oper Res Soc. 2001;52(1):14–25. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar