IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v51y2017i1d10.1007_s11135-015-0296-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use of the analytic hierarchy process for complex assessment of the work environment

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Hnilica

    (Technical University in Zvolen)

  • Martin Jankovský

    (Technical University in Zvolen)

  • Miroslav Dado

    (Technical University in Zvolen)

  • Valéria Messingerová

    (Technical University in Zvolen)

  • Marián Schwarz

    (Technical University in Zvolen)

  • Darina Veverková

    (Technical University in Zvolen)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to outline possibilities for the use of multiple-criteria decision making methods for complex assessment of the work environment. We focused on quantitative pairwise comparison of criteria, taking basic input parameters from a model of complex risk assessment used in selected forestry activities. The model is based on quantification of risk factors (noise, temperature, vibrations and mental stress), which have the most important effect on health and well-being of forest machines operators. Operators are simultaneously influenced by aforementioned risk factors and mutual interaction of all these risk factors was assessed. Proceeding from taken measurements and following experimental assessment it is possible to state that the result of complex assessment by multiple-criteria method influences significantly the determination of weight coefficient of importance. Higher value of weight coefficient means that certain risk factors have a bigger influence on the result and vice versa, risk factors with a lower value of weight coefficient affect the result less. For this reason it is necessary to approach conscientiously and responsibly the assessment of individual pairs of risk factors in Saaty’s matrix.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Hnilica & Martin Jankovský & Miroslav Dado & Valéria Messingerová & Marián Schwarz & Darina Veverková, 2017. "Use of the analytic hierarchy process for complex assessment of the work environment," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 93-101, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:51:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s11135-015-0296-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-015-0296-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-015-0296-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-015-0296-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pi-Fang Hsu & Bi-Yu Chen, 2007. "Developing and Implementing a Selection Model for Bedding Chain Retail Store Franchisee Using Delphi and Fuzzy AHP," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 275-290, April.
    2. Vargas, Luis G., 1990. "An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 2-8, September.
    3. Ayşe Okur & Efendi Nasibov & Musa Kiliç & Murat Yavuz, 2009. "Using OWA aggregation technique in QFD: a case study in education in a textile engineering department," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 43(6), pages 999-1009, November.
    4. Kuo-Liang Lee & Wen-Chih Huang & Junn-Yuan Teng, 2009. "Locating the competitive relation of global logistics hub using quantitative SWOT analytical method," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 87-107, January.
    5. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    6. Chen-Hui Chou & Gin-Shuh Liang & Hung-Chung Chang, 2013. "A fuzzy AHP approach based on the concept of possibility extent," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 1-14, January.
    7. Bice Cavallo & Gerardo Canfora & Livia D’Apuzzo & Massimo Squillante, 2014. "Reasoning under uncertainty and multi-criteria decision making in data privacy," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1957-1972, July.
    8. Pohekar, S. D. & Ramachandran, M., 2004. "Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 365-381, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ben Zhang & Lei Ma & Zheng Liu & Ping Wang, 2019. "Sustainable Technology Innovation Path Recognition: An Evaluation of Patent Risk of International Trade," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-17, September.

    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. Lucas, Rochelle Irene & Promentilla, Michael Angelo & Ubando, Aristotle & Tan, Raymond Girard & Aviso, Kathleen & Yu, Krista Danielle, 2017. "An AHP-based evaluation method for teacher training workshop on information and communication technology," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 93-100.
    2. Virginia Racioppi & Gabriella Marcarelli & Massimo Squillante, 2015. "Modelling a sustainable requalification problem by analytic hierarchy process," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 1661-1677, July.
    3. Antonopoulos, I.-S. & Perkoulidis, G. & Logothetis, D. & Karkanias, C., 2014. "Ranking municipal solid waste treatment alternatives considering sustainability criteria using the analytical hierarchical process tool," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 149-159.
    4. Hsin-Hung Wu & Ya-Ning Tsai, 2012. "Using AHP to evaluate the criteria of auto spare parts industry," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 359-364, January.
    5. Seung-Jin Han & Won-Jae Lee & So-Hee Kim & Sang-Hoon Yoon & Hyunwoong Pyun, 2022. "Assessing Expected Long-term Benefits for the Olympic Games: Delphi-AHP Approach from Korean Olympic Experts," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    6. Domenech, B. & Ferrer-Martí, L. & Pastor, R., 2015. "Hierarchical methodology to optimize the design of stand-alone electrification systems for rural communities considering technical and social criteria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 182-196.
    7. Sobczyk, Eugeniusz J. & Kicki, Jerzy & Sobczyk, Wiktoria & Szuwarzyński, Marek, 2017. "Support of mining investment choice decisions with the use of multi-criteria method," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 94-99.
    8. Korpela, Jukka & Tuominen, Markku, 1996. "A decision aid in warehouse site selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1-3), pages 169-180, August.
    9. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    10. Aertsen, Wim & Kint, Vincent & van Orshoven, Jos & Özkan, Kürşad & Muys, Bart, 2010. "Comparison and ranking of different modelling techniques for prediction of site index in Mediterranean mountain forests," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(8), pages 1119-1130.
    11. Grošelj, Petra & Hodges, Donald G. & Zadnik Stirn, Lidija, 2016. "Participatory and multi-criteria analysis for forest (ecosystem) management: A case study of Pohorje, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 80-86.
    12. Melachrinoudis, Emanuel & Min, Hokey, 2007. "Redesigning a warehouse network," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 176(1), pages 210-229, January.
    13. Sato, Yuji, 2012. "Optimal budget planning for investment in safety measures of a chemical company," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 579-585.
    14. Bice Cavallo & Livia D’Apuzzo & Massimo Squillante, 2015. "A multi-criteria decision making method for sustainable development of Naples port city-area," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 1647-1659, July.
    15. Karatas, Mumtaz & Sulukan, Egemen & Karacan, Ilknur, 2018. "Assessment of Turkey's energy management performance via a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making methodology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 890-912.
    16. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Güleryüz, Sezin, 2016. "An integrated DEMATEL-ANP approach for renewable energy resources selection in Turkey," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 435-448.
    17. Hernandez-Perdomo, Elvis A. & Mun, Johnathan & Rocco S., Claudio M., 2017. "Active management in state-owned energy companies: Integrating a real options approach into multicriteria analysis to make companies sustainable," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 487-502.
    18. Vasileiou, Margarita & Loukogeorgaki, Eva & Vagiona, Dimitra G., 2017. "GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis for site selection of hybrid offshore wind and wave energy systems in Greece," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 745-757.
    19. Xu, Zeshui & Chen, Jian, 2008. "Some models for deriving the priority weights from interval fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 266-280, January.
    20. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi & Dai, Min, 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 229-242, April.

    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:spr:qualqt:v:51:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s11135-015-0296-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.