Safety risk identification and prioritize of forest logging activities using analytic hierarchy process (AHP)

Ünver S., Ergenç I.

ALEXANDRIA ENGINEERING JOURNAL, vol.60, no.1, pp.1591-1599, 2021 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 60 Issue: 1
  • Publication Date: 2021
  • Doi Number: 10.1016/j.aej.2020.11.012
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Compendex, INSPEC, Directory of Open Access Journals
  • Page Numbers: pp.1591-1599
  • Keywords: Decision support system, Analytical hierarchy process, Safety risk analysis, Occupational health and safety, Chainsaw operator, Forest logging, SELECTION, DECISION, MODEL, PROJECTS, CRITERIA, SYSTEM
  • Karadeniz Technical University Affiliated: Yes


In the safety risk assessment, since the determination of risk criteria depending on individuals constitutes subjectivity, it raises some doubts about the reliability of the risk assessment results. Determining the consistency of risk criteria will enable more reliable results in risk assessment. In this study, it is aimed for defining the main and sub-risks to which chainsaw operators working in forest logging are exposed, calculating weight levels using and to develop a framework for precaution plans. The risks were identified by six experts by brainstorming using the information obtained as a result of literature review, workplace observations and work evaluations. As a result of the brainstorming, it has been determined six main risk criteria and twenty-nine sub-risk criteria for chainsaw operators. The weights and ranks of the main and sub-risk criteria were determined by the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, using the results of the surveys applied to expert team of thirty-four people. As a result of AHP application, the consistency values (CR) of all risk criteria was determined less than 0.1, and this showed that the decisions made by the experts were consistent. The main risk criteria according to their priorities were determined as psychological (0.208), physical (0.200), technical (0.198), organizational (0.157), biological (0.130) and chemical (0.108) risks. The most priority sub-risk criteria were identified as insufficient security measures (0.079), land conditions (0.066), carelessness (0.062), morale (0.056) and allergic plants (0.049), respectively. The priority order of the risk criteria will shed light on employers in preparing the necessary precaution plans. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University.