IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i12p5242-d1673270.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Stochastic Knapsack Model for Sustainable Safety Resource Allocation Under Interdependent Safety Measures

Author

Listed:
  • Gökhan Özkan

    (Industrial Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Kırıkkale University, Yahsihan Campus, Kırıkkale 71450, Türkiye)

  • Burak Birgören

    (Industrial Engineering Department, TOBB ETU University of Economics and Technology, Ankara 06510, Türkiye)

  • Ümit Sami Sakallı

    (Industrial Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Kırıkkale University, Yahsihan Campus, Kırıkkale 71450, Türkiye)

Abstract

The optimum choice of safety measures (SMs) within constraints is necessary for effective risk management in occupational health and safety (OHS). The stochastic nature of safety interventions is frequently overlooked by traditional approaches such as deterministic models and risk matrices. This study presents a novel stochastic knapsack model that maximizes the overall expected benefit during a risk assessment period considering budgetary constraints and the interdependencies between risks and safety measures. Two models are developed as follows: a one-to-one relationship model assuming independent risks and a multiple-relationship model accounting for interdependent safety measures. The suggested model’s real-world implementation is illustrated through a case study in the retail industry. The results demonstrate the model’s ability to efficiently prioritize SMs, showing an 18% reduction in objective function value and an average risk reduction of 29.5 per monetary unit invested, compared to 26.2 for the deterministic model. A more realistic and flexible framework for safety investment planning is offered by the analysis, which emphasizes the benefits of including stochastic components and interdependencies in decision-making. By addressing the significant drawbacks of deterministic models and providing a flexible, data-driven framework for safety optimization, this study adds to the body of literature. The suggested model is in line with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specifically SDGs 3, 8, 9, and 12. Its adaptability contributes to achieving SDG 13, emphasizing possible uses in risk management for climate change. This study shows how decision-making that is structured and aware of uncertainty can support safer, more sustainable industrial processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Gökhan Özkan & Burak Birgören & Ümit Sami Sakallı, 2025. "A Stochastic Knapsack Model for Sustainable Safety Resource Allocation Under Interdependent Safety Measures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-23, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:12:p:5242-:d:1673270
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/12/5242/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/12/5242/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chunbing Bao & Jianping Li & Dengsheng Wu, 2018. "A fuzzy mapping framework for risk aggregation based on risk matrices," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(5), pages 539-561, May.
    2. Gulsum Kubra Kaya & James Ward & John Clarkson, 2019. "A Review of Risk Matrices Used in Acute Hospitals in England," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(5), pages 1060-1070, May.
    3. Jianping Li & Chunbing Bao & Dengsheng Wu, 2018. "How to Design Rating Schemes of Risk Matrices: A Sequential Updating Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 99-117, January.
    4. Shabnam Vatanpour & Steve E. Hrudey & Irina Dinu, 2015. "Can Public Health Risk Assessment Using Risk Matrices Be Misleading?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-14, August.
    5. Marhavilas, P.K. & Koulouriotis, D.E., 2012. "A combined usage of stochastic and quantitative risk assessment methods in the worksites: Application on an electric power provider," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 36-46.
    6. Louis Anthony Cox, 2009. "Risk Analysis of Complex and Uncertain Systems," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-0-387-89014-2, December.
    7. David J. Ball & John Watt, 2013. "Further Thoughts on the Utility of Risk Matrices," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 2068-2078, November.
    8. Roger C. Jensen & Royce L. Bird & Blake W. Nichols, 2022. "Risk Assessment Matrices for Workplace Hazards: Design for Usability," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-23, February.
    9. Dai, Yunhao & Tong, Xinchu & Wang, Li, 2022. "Workplace safety accident, employee treatment, and firm value: Evidence from China," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    10. Jordan, Silvia & Mitterhofer, Hermann & Jørgensen, Lene, 2018. "The interdiscursive appeal of risk matrices: Collective symbols, flexibility normalism and the interplay of ‘risk’ and ‘uncertainty’," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 34-55.
    11. Robert T. Clemen & Robert L. Winkler, 1985. "Limits for the Precision and Value of Information from Dependent Sources," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 427-442, April.
    12. Ali Asgary & Ali Ihsan Ozdemir, 2020. "Global risks and tourism industry in Turkey," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(5), pages 1513-1536, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. F. Acebes & J. M. González-Varona & A. López-Paredes & J. Pajares, 2024. "Beyond probability-impact matrices in project risk management: A quantitative methodology for risk prioritisation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Dengsheng Wu & Xiaoqian Zhu & Jie Wan & Chunbing Bao & Jianping Li, 2019. "A Multiobjective Optimization Approach for Selecting Risk Response Strategies of Software Project: From the Perspective of Risk Correlations," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(01), pages 339-364, January.
    3. Alessandro Capocchi & Paola Orlandini & Stefano Amelio, 2021. "Hospital risk management at the time of Covid-19: An analysis of the Lombardy Region," MECOSAN, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(118), pages 97-116.
    4. Roger C. Jensen & Royce L. Bird & Blake W. Nichols, 2022. "Risk Assessment Matrices for Workplace Hazards: Design for Usability," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-23, February.
    5. Alex de Lima Teodoro da Penha & Samuel Vinícius Bonato & Joana Baleeiro Passos & Eduardo da Silva Fernandes & Cínthia Kulpa & Carla Schwengber ten Caten, 2024. "Navigating the Urgency: An Open Innovation Project of Protective Equipment Development from a Quadruple Helix Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-32, February.
    6. A. E. Ades & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2006. "Evidence synthesis, parameter correlation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 373-381, April.
    7. Roger C. Jensen & Haley Hansen, 2020. "Selecting Appropriate Words for Naming the Rows and Columns of Risk Assessment Matrices," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-17, July.
    8. Tian Luan, 2024. "A Review of Corporate Social Responsibility Decoupling and Its Impact: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-17, May.
    9. Jaspersen, Johannes G., 2022. "Convex combinations in judgment aggregation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(2), pages 780-794.
    10. Robert L. Winkler & Robert T. Clemen, 2004. "Multiple Experts vs. Multiple Methods: Combining Correlation Assessments," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 167-176, September.
    11. Łukasz Kuta & Piotr Komarnicki & Katarzyna Łakoma & Joanna Praska, 2023. "Tomato Fruit Quality as Affected by Ergonomic Conditions While Manually Harvested," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-18, September.
    12. Mark Freeman & Ben Groom, 2015. "Using equity premium survey data to estimate future wealth," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 45(4), pages 665-693, November.
    13. Kaya, Gulsum Kubra & Hocaoglu, Mehmet Fatih, 2020. "Semi-quantitative application to the Functional Resonance Analysis Method for supporting safety management in a complex health-care process," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    14. Jin, Yige & Dong, Nanyan & Tian, Gaoliang & Zhang, Junrui, 2023. "Wisdom of the masses: Employee education and corporate risk taking," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    15. Gary J. Summers, 2021. "Friction and Decision Rules in Portfolio Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 101-120, June.
    16. He, Kaijian & Tso, Geoffrey K.F. & Zou, Yingchao & Liu, Jia, 2018. "Crude oil risk forecasting: New evidence from multiscale analysis approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 574-583.
    17. Paola Monari & Patrizia Agati, 2001. "Fiducial inference in combining expert judgements," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 10(1), pages 81-97, January.
    18. Xixiong Xu & Maochuan Wang, 2024. "Confucianism and employee treatment: Evidence from China," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 2649-2669, July.
    19. Dimitrina S. Dimitrova & Vladimir K. Kaishev & Shouqi Zhao, 2015. "Modeling Finite‐Time Failure Probabilities in Risk Analysis Applications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(10), pages 1919-1939, October.
    20. Iraj Mohammadfam & Marc Bascompta & AliAsghar Khajevandi & Hesam Dehghani, 2022. "Modeling of Causes and Consequences of Human Error in Mining Processes Design: A Qualitative Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-19, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:12:p:5242-:d:1673270. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.