IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v18y2026i2p665-d1836361.html

Occupational Risk Assessment in Irrigation and Drainage in the Lis Valley, Portugal: A Comparative Evaluation of the William T. Fine and INSHT/NTP 330 Simplified Method

Author

Listed:
  • Susana Ferreira

    (National Institute for Agrarian and Veterinary Research (INIAV), Public Institute, Estrada de Leiria, 2460-059 Alcobaça, Portugal)

  • Tânia Filipe

    (Professional Training Service, Employment and Professional Training Center of Vila Nova de Gaia, Northern Regional Delegation, Institute of Employment and Professional Training (IEFP), Public Institute, 4430-131 Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal)

  • Juan Manuel Sánchez

    (Instituto de Desarrollo Regional, UCLM Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 02071 Albacete, Spain)

  • José Manuel Gonçalves

    (Department of Environment and Society, CERNAS—Research Center for Natural Resources, Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra, IPC Instituto Politécnico de Coimbra, 3045-601 Coimbra, Portugal)

  • Rui Eugénio

    (ARBVL Associação de Regantes e Beneficiários do Vale do Lis, Quinta do Picoto, 2425-492 Leiria, Portugal)

  • Henrique Damásio

    (ARBVL Associação de Regantes e Beneficiários do Vale do Lis, Quinta do Picoto, 2425-492 Leiria, Portugal)

Abstract

Ensuring the safe, efficient, and economically viable operation of irrigation and drainage infrastructures is essential for long-term system resilience. This field-based study presents a comparative evaluation of the semi-quantitative William T. Fine (WF) method and a simplified probability–consequence (SM) approach applied in the Lis Valley Irrigation and Drainage Association (Leiria, Portugal). Monthly on-site observations of routine maintenance and conservation activities were conducted between January 2023 and December 2024, covering eight main operation types and resulting in 87 distinct occupational risk scenarios (N = 87). The mean Hazard Risk Score (HRS) was 88.9 ± 51.1, corresponding predominantly to “Substantial” risk levels according to the William T. Fine classification (HRS = 70–200). Both methods consistently identified the highest-risk activities—tractor rollover, work at height, and boat-based removal of aquatic plants. Quantitative differences emerged for medium and chronic hazards; WF produced a wider dispersion of risk scores across tasks, while the SM aggregated most hazards into a limited number of intervention classes (74% classified as Intervention Level II and 26% as Level III). These differences reflect complementary methodological limitations; WF requires greater data input and expert judgment but offers finer prioritization, whereas SM enables rapid field application but tends to group ergonomic and low-intensity hazards when consequences are not immediately observable. Based on these findings, a combined assessment framework is proposed, integrating the discriminative capacity of WF with the operational simplicity of SM. Recommended mitigation measures include targeted personal protective equipment, task rotation, focused training, and technology-assisted monitoring to reduce worker exposure. The methodology is readily replicable for Water Users’ Associations with similar operational contexts and supports evidence-based decision-making for sustainable irrigation management. From a sustainability perspective, this integrated risk assessment framework supports safer working conditions, more efficient maintenance planning, and informed policy decisions for the long-term management of irrigation and drainage infrastructures.

Suggested Citation

  • Susana Ferreira & Tânia Filipe & Juan Manuel Sánchez & José Manuel Gonçalves & Rui Eugénio & Henrique Damásio, 2026. "Occupational Risk Assessment in Irrigation and Drainage in the Lis Valley, Portugal: A Comparative Evaluation of the William T. Fine and INSHT/NTP 330 Simplified Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-31, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2026:i:2:p:665-:d:1836361
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/2/665/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/2/665/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:18:y:2026:i:2:p:665-:d:1836361. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.