0
Technical Brief

A Fuzzy Logic Approach in the Definition of Risk Acceptance Boundaries in Occupational Safety and Health

[+] Author and Article Information
Matilde A. Rodrigues

Research Centre on Environment and Health, School of Allied Health Technology of Institute Polytechnic of Porto,
Vila Nova de Gaia 4400-330, Portugal
e-mail: mar@estsp.ipp.pt

Celina P. Leão

Mem. ASME DPS/ALGORITMI Research Centre, School of Engineering, University of Minho,
Guimarães, 4800-058, Portugal
e-mail: cpl@dps.uminho.pt

Eusébio Nunes

DPS/ALGORITMI Research Centre, School of Engineering, University of Minho,
Guimarães, 4800-058, Portugal
e-mail: enunes@dps.uminho.pt

Sérgio Sousa

DPS/ALGORITMI Research Centre, School of Engineering, University of Minho,
Guimarães, 4800-058, Portugal
e-mail: sds@dps.uminho.pt

Pedro Arezes

DPS/ALGORITMI Research Centre, School of Engineering, University of Minho,
Guimarães, 4800-058, Portugal
e-mail: parezes@dps.uminho.pt

Manuscript received February 24, 2015; final manuscript received March 3, 2016; published online August 19, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Chimba Mkandawire.

ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Part B 2(4), 044501 (Aug 19, 2016) (6 pages) Paper No: RISK-15-1031; doi: 10.1115/1.4032923 History: Received February 24, 2015; Accepted March 03, 2016

Organizations need to make decisions about risk acceptance, to decide about the need of risk-reducing measures. In this process, the personal judgments of occupational safety and health (OSH) practitioners have great importance. If on one hand, they have the technical knowledge about risk; on the other hand, the decisions can be dependent on their level of risk acceptance. This paper analyzes judgments of OSH practitioners about the level of risk acceptance, using the fuzzy logic approach. A questionnaire to analyze the reported level of risk acceptance was applied. The questionnaire included 79 risk scenarios, each accounting for the frequency of an accident with more lost workdays than a given magnitude. Through the two-step cluster analysis, three groups of OSH practitioners were identified: unacceptable, tolerable, and realistic groups. A further analysis of the realistic group judgments about risk was performed, using the fuzzy logic approach. The fuzzy sets of input and output variables were determined, and the relationship between the variables was mapped through fuzzy rules. After that, the min–max fuzzy inference method was used. The obtained results show that the risk level is acceptable when input variables are at the lowest value and unacceptable when the risk level is high. The obtained results allow us to better understand the modeling of OSH practitioners’ judgments about risk acceptance, noting the uncertainty related to these judgments.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Rodrigues, M. A., Arezes, P., and Leão, C. P. 2014, “Risk Criteria in Occupational Environments: Critical Overview and Discussion,” Procedia Social Behav. Sci., 109, pp. 257–262. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.455
Renn, O., 1997, “The Role of Risk Perception for Risk Management,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 59(1), pp. 49–62. 10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00119-1
ISO “Risk Management—Principles and Guidelines,” International Organization for Standardization, ISO 31000:2009.
Pidgeon, N., 1998, “Risk Assessment, Risk Values and the Social Science Programme: Why We Do Need Risk Perception Research,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 59(1), pp. 5–15. 10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00114-2
Rodrigues, M. A., Arezes, P., and Leão, C. P., 2011, “Risk Acceptance Criteria Formulation in Furniture Industry: The Portuguese Reality,” ASME 2011 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, IMECE 2011 (Transportation Systems; Safety Engineering, Risk Analysis and Reliability Methods; Applied Stochastic Optimization, Uncertainty and Probability, Vol. 9), Nov. 2011, Denver, CO, pp. 431–439.
Rodrigues, M. A., Arezes, P., and Leão, C. P., 2015, “Defining Risk Acceptance Criteria in Occupational Settings: A Case Study in the Furniture Industrial Sector,” Saf. Sci., 80, pp. 288–295. 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.08.007
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., and Combs, B., 1978, “How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Towards Technological Risks and Benefits,” Policy Sci., 9(2), pp. 127–152. 10.1007/BF00143739
Lima, M. L. P., 2005, “Percepção de Riscos Ambientais,” Contextos Humanos e Psicologia Ambiental, L. Soczka, , ed., Fundação Calouste Gukbenkian, Lisboa, Portugal.
Boholm, A., 1998, “Comparative Studies of Risk Perception: A Review of Twenty Years of Research,” J. Risk Res., 1(2), pp. 135–163. 10.1080/136698798377231
Huijts, N. M. A., Molina, E. J. E., and Steg, L., 2012, “Psychological Factors Influencing Sustainable Energy Technology Acceptance: A Review-Based Comprehensive Framework,” Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev., 16(1), pp. 525–531. 10.1016/j.rser.2011.08.018
Dubois, D., Nguyen, H. T., and Prade, H., 2000, “Fundamentals of Fuzzy Sets,” The Handbooks of Fuzzy Sets Series, D. Dubois, , and H. Prade, eds., Springer Science+Business Media, New York, Vol. 7, pp. 343–438.
Peng-cheng, L., Guo-hua, C., Li-cao, D., and Li, Z., 2010, “Fuzzy Logic-Based Approach for Identifying the Risk Importance of Human Error,” Saf. Sci., 48(7), pp. 902–913. 10.1016/j.ssci.2010.03.012
Guimaraes, A. C. F., and Lapa, C. M. F., 2007, “Fuzzy Inference to Risk Assessment on Nuclear Engineering Systems,” Appl. Comput., 7(1), pp. 17–28. 10.1016/j.asoc.2005.06.002
Mamdani, E. H., and Assilian, S., 1975, “An Experiment in Linguistic Synthesis With a Fuzzy Logic Controller,” Int. J. Man Mach. Stud., 7(1), pp. 1–13. 0020-7373 10.1016/S0020-7373(75)80002-2
Rodrigues, M. A., Arezes, P., and Leão, C. P., 2013, “Workers’Risk Acceptance Level in the Furniture Sector,” Intelligent Systems and Decision Making for Risk Analysis and Crisis Response, C. Huang, , and C. Kaharaman, eds., Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 631-636.
Burgman, M., Fidler, F., McBride, M., Walshe, T., and Wintle, B., 2006, Eliciting Expert Judgments: Literature Review, ACERA, University of Melbourne, Australia.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Example of the scenarios included in the questionnaire

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Graphical representation (membership functions) of fuzzy variable days lost

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Graphical representation (membership functions) of fuzzy variable accident frequency

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Fuzzy graphical representation for the risk level of the occupational accidents

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

IF–THEN rules for risk level inference by changing the values of inputs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Fuzzy function defined by IF–THEN rules between two inputs (days lost and accident frequency) and output (risk level) in a three-dimensional input–output space

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Fuzzy function defined by IF–THEN rules between two inputs (days lost and accident frequency) and output (risk level) in a 2D input–output space

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Articles from Part A: Civil Engineering
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In