Analyzing Health, Safety, and Environmental Risks of Construction Projects Using the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Field Study Based on a Project Management Body of Knowledge

Abstract

Due to their unique nature, construction projects are considered one of the world’s most hazardous and incident-prone industrial sectors. The present study aimed to analyze health, safety and environmental (HSE) risks relating to construction projects based on the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK) and sustainability approach. This study was conducted with the participation of 30 experts, using the semi-quantitative risk assessment technique, in nine areas of the project management’s body of knowledge, based on the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Risk, in this study, was estimated using a two-dimensional matrix of incident probability and severity, each of which has four sub-parameters. The HSE risks pertaining to each of the nine areas of PMBOK were identified. After that, the two dimensions of risk, including incident probability and severity, were measured. Thirty-seven risk sources associated with nine areas of the PMBOK were identified. Risk analysis revealed that 20 sources were at an unacceptable risk level, and 17 risks were at a tolerable risk level. Identifying HSE-related risk sources in accordance with the nine areas of PMBOK, and using FAHP to assess the risk of these hazards in construction projects, can lead to a more realistic estimate of risk in construction projects. The presented method in the current study can create a novel perspective in terms of the construction industry’s risk management and assessment.

1. Introduction

Construction projects are generally complex and sometimes unsafe for workers and environments, thus affecting sustainable development [1]. They are one of the most hazardous workplaces because of the high number of accidents that occur. Consequently, construction safety can be regarded as one of the most severe problems in the construction industry worldwide, particularly when large construction projects are underway. This is because of the involvement of many workers, construction techniques, numerous large and heavy plants, the large amount of materials and equipment utilized, the complex construction operations, the multi-interfaces, and the different disciplinary aspects of the project’s workforce. These measures eventually lead to higher accident rates during construction projects. Accidents that tend to occur during construction projects include falling from a height, collisions, collapsing, and electric shocks; of these, falling from height and collapsing are the most prevalent [2,3].

Due to their unique nature, construction projects are considered to be part of one of the most hazardous and incident-prone industrial sectors in the world [4,5,6,7]. The construction industry has always faced challenges in terms of risk factors and health, safety, and environmental (HSE) risks. The number of incidents and injuries in the construction industry has increased daily, making the construction industry one of the world’s most hazardous industries [8]. Indeed, 25–50% of catastrophic and fatal incidents in industrialized countries are related to the construction industry [9]. A previous study has shown that the construction industry in the USA, South Korea, and China have consistently high fatal occupational injuries, and the most common accident types were “fell from a higher level” and “struck by an object”. China recorded the highest average number of fatal occupational injuries in construction sites at 2328, followed by the U.S. at 881, and South Korea at 533; however, South Korea had the highest average mortality rate at 17.9, followed by the U.S. at 9.4, and China at 5.3 [10].

The presence of harmful occupational incidents in construction projects, such as falls and slips, thrown objects, abrasions, and collisions, are among the major incidents that tend to occur in this sector. These incidents have other consequences associated with them in addition to direct and indirect costs and adverse social consequences, such as legal prosecutions, damage to the organization’s credibility, a reduction in the quality of the project, and so on. As such, paying due attention to these factors can play a very important role in the promotion and productivity of organizations [11].

Construction safety, as a result, continues to represent a severe problem, and it poses a challenge for researchers and practitioners. In Iran, society and the economy have suffered human and financial losses due to poor safety performance in the construction industry [2,3].

Today, one of the main reasons behind the economic development of any society is its success in advancing construction projects and creating the necessary infrastructure in that society. Realizing this requires the necessary technology and expertise during the management of these projects. There are several approaches and standards in this regard, one of which is the project management body of knowledge approach. The PMBOK approach emphasizes nine main areas of project management: project integration management, project scope management, project schedule management, project cost management, project quality management, project human resource management, project communication management, project risk management, and project procurement management [12].

In its PMBOK guide to the project risk management process, the Project Management Institute (PMI) defines six phases: risk management planning, risk identification, qualitative risk analysis, quantitative risk analysis, risk response planning, and risk monitoring and control [12]. Analyses of incidents in construction projects shows that improper risk management processes have caused many of these projects to encounter severe problems. Consequently, many organizations implementing construction projects have been removed from the competition cycle due to the lack of proper risk management of occupational safety and health (OS and H). Furthermore, supposing the root cause of the abovementioned issue is found, it then becomes apparent that the majority of problems are caused by the inadequate project management structure, chiefly, the occupational safety and health (OS and H) management of the project. In addition, there seems to be no coherent and appropriate method or algorithm to mitigate this issue.

In addition to management concepts that are appropriate to the nature of industrial risks, using accurate and reliable mathematical approaches, such as the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process, can be a practical step when assessing the risk factors in this industry [13,14].

Sustainable organizations persist in balancing the triple bottom line of people, planet, and profit to acquire long-term success and viability. This implies that organizations cannot be sustainable without protecting their human resources’ safety, health, and welfare. Sustainability is not just about what is done but how it is done. It is a mindset that demands leadership, and not settling for second best in any aspect of the operation. Moreover, it requires setting and achieving goals beyond regulatory compliance measures [1,15].

Worldwide, organizations have assumed this mindset to showcase their values, to measure effects and consequences, and to increase their competitive benefit; however, workplace safety and health are often underemphasized or ignored entirely. Integrating safety and health into sustainability offers an opportunity to better protect employees and to create a sustainable organization. Although many worker points are embedded within the concept of sustainability, there is a unique chance to progress O and H using this framework. In this context, OS and H promotes workers’ safety, health, and welfare. Employing a sustainability framework provides a way to reimagine approaches for protecting workers, it introduces new issues to analyze, and it offers opportunities that aid innovation [16].

Unexpectedly, this is not often the case, as little attention is given to safety concerns when a sustainable approach is being developed. Organizations’ sustainability programs usually only focus on environmental and financial situations. Safety should be given suitable attention in order to create truly sustainable practices as it preserves human resources. Moreover, sustainability is about conserving resources such as the environment and measuring how socially responsible an organization has been when conducting its operations, including its ability to protect employees (human resources) from incidents and occupational injuries [15,17,18].

Experts argue that occupational safety and health fit squarely within the social responsibility component of sustainability [19].

One of the most important ways to decrease incidents and consequences in construction projects is to use risk assessment methods that are adapted to the working conditions.

One of the ways to achieve sustainability is to preserve the safety of employees, especially in high-risk work environments. This involves assessing the relevant risks associated with the dangers of work environments, and forming management plans with forward-looking and proactive approaches. To achieve this, all existing potential hazards must first be identified and assessed. Then, appropriate controls and corrective measures should be taken to obtain the following [11]: risk management and assessment, as an essential element to identify all HSE risks. Indeed, this can help the construction industry detect critical hazards [1,20,21]. All of the abovementioned issues call for the creation of an appropriate scientific and operational algorithm that is commensurate with the nature of HSE risks in the construction industry. As one of the highest-risk sectors in the occupational community, in both developed and developing countries, a scientific approach, such as a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, could be beneficial. As such, this study was designed and conducted in order to analyze the HSE risks of construction projects, in accordance with the nine areas of the project management body of knowledge, using the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

The current study was a descriptive–analytical, cross-sectional study that was conducted within one of the largest construction macro-projects in Iran, in 2020. This study used a semi-quantitative technique to assess HSE risks based on the sustainability approach and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) methodology. Risk, in this study, was estimated based on a two-dimensional matrix of incident probability and severity, each of which has four sub-parameters. In the present study, HSE risks related to the 9 area project management body of knowledge were identified and assessed in a large construction project with the participation of 30 experts in project management, health, safety, and environment (HSE), as well as construction.

All participants were male and employed in the largest construction project hub in Iran—Tehran. Among the participants, ten experts had a master’s degree, and twenty experts had a bachelor’s degree. The mean and standard deviation of the age and work experience of the participants were 41.6 ± 10.32 and 12.14 ± 8.10 years, respectively. Moreover, 50% of the participants had a degree in safety engineering, 35% had a degree in HSE engineering, and 15% had a degree in industrial management. In order to collect data, checklists to measure the two components of probability and severity, and eight parameters to determine the values of the mentioned components, were designed and given to experts for evaluation. In order to evaluate the reliability of the collected data, the most skilled and experienced experts in Iran were used. Additionally, at the beginning of the study, a training class was held to familiarize the participants with the evaluation model. During the study, the performance of participants was monitored by researchers. Implementation steps of the present study are presented in Figure 1.

Project Management Body of Knowledge

PMBOK is the most well-known global standard in project management, and it is the most common benchmark for assessing project management systems (in other words, it is a familiar language in project management). The PMBOK guide is defined based on the following processes.

The three processes include:

Inputs (documents, maps, designs, etc.);

Tools and techniques (how to use inputs);

Outputs (documents, productions, etc.).

The nine areas of the PMBOK guide include the following items:

• Integration;
• Scope;
• Time;
• Cost;
• Quality;
• Human Resources;
• Communications;
• Risk;
• Procurement.

Process groups categorize PMBOK processes according to their conceptual sequence. There is a process in five of the PMBOK groups:

The planning process group is in charge of project planning.

The implementation process group is responsible for the implementation of project plans.

The monitoring and control process group evaluates how well the project is being implemented and programmed.

The termination process group performs some of the final tasks for the project.

The PMBOK is a general term that describes a body of knowledge in the project management profession.

The PMBOK global standard is one of the best project management standards in the world, and it is revised every four years by the project management institute (PMI). The purpose of PMBOK is to provide its audience with an integrated approach to project management practices. In this study, we used the 6th edition of PMBOK.

This study was conducted in accordance with the following steps:

2.2. Identification of HSE-Related Risks

Identifying HSE risks in this study was based on the nine areas of PMBOK. These nine areas include: (1) project integration management, (2) project scope management, (3) project schedule management, (4) project cost management, (5) project quality management, (6) project human resource management, (7) project communication management, 8) project risk management, and (9) project procurement management [12]. Identifying the HSE risks in this large construction project was performed using a risk identification checklist that was related to construction projects. Moreover, a description and analysis of the various activities that were undertaken for this project were also used to identify HSE risks, as was a brainstorming approach that was employed by the panel of experts in the study.

2.3. Measurement of Sub-Parameters of Risk Dimensions

This study used the guide in order to perform the semi-quantitative risk assessment technique to calculate and estimate the sub-parameters of risk dimensions, including incident probability and severity. The dimension of risk repeatability in this study included the parameter of incident probability, which was measured based on four sub-parameters, including technical inspection, incident experience, detection probability, and human reliability (

Table 1. Guide to the determination of incident probability [3].

Score	Technical Inspection	Incident Experience	Detection Probability	Human Reliability (HR)
1	Weekly	Incident data are available in similar projects and root analysis has been performed on them.	The risk is detected and revealed via the existing controls.	Regarding this risk, HR is assessed, BBS is implemented, a training program is implemented, and training outcomes are evaluated.
2	Monthly	Incident data are available through employer/contractor records, and root analysis has been performed on them.	The probability (>50%) is that the risk is detected and revealed via the existing controls.	Regarding this risk, a training program is implemented and training outcomes are evaluated.
3	Once in every three months	Incident data are available through employer/contractor records. Only a descriptive analysis has been performed on them.	The probability (<50%) is that the risk is detected and revealed via the existing controls.	Regarding this risk, a training program is implemented.
4	Once in every six months	Incident data are available through the employer/contractor records. No analysis has been performed on them.	It is unlikely (<10%) that the risk is detected and revealed via the existing controls.	Regarding this risk, compulsory and official training programs have been incompletely performed.
5	At least once during the project lifetime	No incident data is available.	There is no control, and in the case of any risk being present, it is not detectable	Regarding this risk, no measure is taken for HR assessment, BBS implementation, training, or evaluation.

). The incident severity parameter was estimated as the dimension of risk outcome using the sub-parameters of human harm, cost imposition, damage to the organization’s credibility, and impact on project time and operational interruption (

Table 2. Guide to the determination of incident severity [3].

Score	Human Harm	Cost Imposition (Financial Damage, Legal Fine)	Damaging Organization Credibility	Impact on Project Time and Operational Interruption
1	Minor harm, injury, and trauma requiring first aid.	Less than USD 2500	Imperceptible repercussions	Operational interruption of less than 2 h
2	Moderate harm, lower trauma, and injury, leading to short-term hospitalization (up to three days).	USD 2500–5000	Repercussions among the stakeholders	Operational interruption of up to one day
3	Severe harm, and multiple traumas and injuries, leading to long-term hospitalization (more than three days).	USD 5000–10,000	Repercussions among the stakeholders and social networks	Operational interruption ranging from one day to one week
4	Harm leading to disability, amputation, and permanent disability.	USD 10,000–25,000	Repercussions among the stakeholders, social networks, and widely-circulated newspapers	Operational interruption ranging from one week to one month
5	Death of one person or more.	More than USD 25,000	Repercussions among the stakeholders, social networks, and widely-circulated newspapers, both at the national and international level	Operational interruption lasting more than one month

) [3].

2.3.1. Probability of Occurrence

The probability feature that relates to the concept of risk is defined as the probability of an incident happening within a specific period, which, in this study, was determined using the following parameters.

• Detection probability;
• Human reliability;
• Technical inspection;
• Accident experience;
• Severity of occurrence.

2.3.2. Severity of Occurrence

The severity component that relates to the concept of risk is defined as the range of losses and injuries caused if the risk comes to fruition, and harm occurs. It is clear from this concept that this parameter can be calculated and specified through the following important factors:

• human injury;
• financial loss;
• operational interruption;
• reputational damage.

2.4. HSE Risk Analysis of Construction Projects

An analysis of the HSE risks that are related to the 9 PMBOK areas of this large construction project was conducted in accordance with FAHP. These risks were analyzed using a two-dimensional risk matrix (Figure 2). The weight factors presented in this figure were calculated and presented for each of the sub-parameters of the two dimensions of the risk matrix in accordance with FAHP.

The current study was performed using the method proposed by Chang; this is because it is easier to perform and it yields accurate results [22,23]. As such, the construction risk index (CRI), and the incident probability and severity parameters, were calculated based on equations 1–3 and Figure 2 below. It should be noted that decision-making levels based on these calculations have been classified into acceptable risk (CRI < 1), ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable) (CRI = 1–3), and unacceptable risk (CRI > 3).

ALARP stands for “as low as reasonably practicable”. “Reasonably practicable” means weighing a risk against the trouble, time, and money needed to control it; thus, ALARP describes the level to which we expect to see workplace risks controlled.

The ALARP concept can be used to define two sets of risk tolerance criteria: a minimum requirement and a target value. Between the two sets of criteria, a tolerable level of risk may be found. The residual risk should fall either in the acceptable region or close to the bottom of the tolerable region. The ALARP concept arises within a regulatory framework. Increasingly, it is used by companies around the world as it provides a reasonable basis for managing risks [24].

$$\mathit{C}\mathit{R}\mathit{I}=\left[\mathit{P}\mathit{r}\mathit{o}\mathit{b}\mathit{a}\mathit{b}\mathit{i}\mathit{l}\mathit{i}\mathit{t}\mathit{y}\times \mathbf{0.486}\right]\times \left[\mathit{S}\mathit{e}\mathit{v}\mathit{e}\mathit{r}\mathit{i}\mathit{t}\mathit{y}\times \mathbf{0.514}\right]$$

(1)

$$\mathit{P}\mathit{r}\mathit{o}\mathit{b}\mathit{a}\mathit{b}\mathit{i}\mathit{l}\mathit{i}\mathit{t}\mathit{y}={\displaystyle \sum }{\mathit{P}}_{\mathit{i}}\mathit{P}{\mathit{W}}_{\mathit{i}}$$

(2)

$$\mathit{S}\mathit{e}\mathit{v}\mathit{e}\mathit{r}\mathit{i}\mathit{t}\mathit{y}={\displaystyle \sum }{\mathit{S}}_{\mathit{i}}\mathit{S}{\mathit{W}}_{\mathit{i}}$$

(3)

• CRI: Construction risk index;
• Probability: Incident probability;
• Severity: Incident severity;
• Pi: Numerical index of sub-parameters of incident probability (Table 1);
• PWi: Normalized weight of each of sub-parameters of incident probability (Figure 2);
• Si: Numerical index of sub-parameters of incident severity (Table 2);
• SWi: Normalized weight of each of sub-parameters of incident severity (Figure 2) [3].

3. Results

The results of the HSE hazard identification, based on nine areas of the PMBOK, revealed that a total of 37 risks in this project threaten the safety and health of human, as well as economic and environmental investments (

Table 3. The results of HSE risk analysis in three areas, including integrated project management, project scope, and project scheduling.

Risk Source	Causes of Incidence	Incidence Probability				Incidence Severity				CRI
		Technical Inspection	Incidence Experience	Detection Probability	Human Reliability	Human Resources	Cost Imposition	Damage to Organization’s Credibility	Project Interruption
Integrated project management
Lack of policy definition in the field of HSE.	Lack of commitment from the manager and staff.	N.A †	N.A	3	3	5	5	5	5	2.282 ‡
Lack of definition concerning the HSE needs of stakeholders	Lack of detection of the HSE needs of stakeholders.	N.A	N.A	4	4	5	3	4	4	2.517
Lack of developing HSE programs during project lifetime.	Lack of an index for evaluating HSE performance.	N.A	N.A	3	2	5	4	4	4	1.597
Absence of/HSE unit and defects in organization chart.	Improper status of HSE in projects, wrong decisions, and vulnerability to incidences occurring.	N.A	N.A	1	3	5	5	5	5	1.670 ‡
Project scope management
Insufficient knowledge of organization’s managers concerning the hazards and risks of the construction industry.	Lack of obedience to managers to resolve notified discrepancies.	N.A	N.A	4	1	5	4	5	5	1.600
Lack of attention to HSE issues when developing work breakdown structure.	Lack of attention to HSE in the breakdown structure, and a violation of these guidelines in the execution phase.	N.A	N.A	3	4	5	3	3	5	2.255
Failure to comply with the prioritization of activities based on HSE requirements.	Lack of proper fire alarm and extinguisher systems, and a lack of fall prevention guard installations.	N.A	N.A	2	4	5	3	3	5	2.003
Project scheduling
Failure to specify the time for receiving Machinery Health Certificate at WBS.	Defects in machinery and equipment.	4	3	3	4	5	4	5	5	4.367
Failure to allocate time for HSE training at WBS.	Lack of proper training and occurrence of unsafe practices.	N.A	4	4	4	5	3	4	5	3.014
Failure to allocate time to make the workplace safe before the start of work (installing lifeline).	Failure to make the workplace safe.	1	3	3	3	5	5	5	5	2.990 ‡
Failure to allocate time for HSE-focused meetings (incident analysis).	Few HSE problems are presented and there is a lack of commitment at the managerial level to solve problems.	N.A	N.A	4	2	5	3	3	4	1.676
Failure to determine the time of clinical and para clinical tests (high risk occupations).	Physical incompetence of the individual at time of employment and occurrence of occupational diseases and incidents.	N.A	4	5	3	5	3	4	4	2.758

^† No index has been defined for this sub-parameter which concerns the identified risk sources. ^‡ Based on the construction of the semi-quantitative risk assessment technique, if the index of any of the incidence probability or severity parameters equals five, regardless of the final construction risk index, the risk level is estimated to be unacceptable.

,

Table 4. The results of HSE risk analysis in three areas: project costs, quality, and human resource management.

Risk Source	Causes of Incidence	Incidence Probability				Incidence Severity				CRI
		Technical Inspection	Incidence Experience	Detection Probability	Human Reliability	Human Resources	Cost Imposition	Damage to Organization’s Credibility	Project Interruption
Project cost management
Failure to pay employees’ salaries on time, thus creating job stress and lack of focus on the assigned tasks.	Creating job stress and setting the stage for incidents to occur.	N.A †	N.A	4	5	4	4	4	5	2.785
Lack of finances to provide standard equipment and machinery.	Defects in equipment and machinery and the occurrence of incidents.	N.A	3	5	5	3	2	5	5	2.306 ‡
No cost allocation for hiring an HSE supervisor, expert, and officer, proportional to the project phases.	Failure to set up an integrated HSE monitoring system.	N.A	N.A	5	5	2	2	5	5	1.521 ‡
Non-allocation of civil liability insurance policies to third parties and machinery.	Failure to receive insurance with full coverage.	N.A	4	5	1	2	3	5	5	1.598
No funds allocated to the implementation of improvement projects (such as lifeline systems and fuse supplies).	Failure to implement improvement projects and resolve HSE inconsistencies.	2	3	5	5	2	2	5	5	2.608 ‡
Project quality
Non-compliance with QC concepts regarding concrete and structural welding.	Poor execution of the project and occurrence of incidents in the implementation phase.	3	4	3	3	5	5	4	4	3.550
Lack of quality materials being supplied.	Failure to properly implement the project.	2	5	3	4	5	5	5	3	3.801
Lack of quality personal protective equipment.	Inability to prevent incidents.	2	3	2	2	5	5	4	3	2.301
Absence of a maintenance system for the machinery.	Inability to properly repair and maintain machinery.	3	4	4	3	5	5	4	4	3.898
Supplying consumer equipment without the necessary quality.	Inability to supply quality consumer equipment.	4	3	3	3	5	4	4	3	3.387
Human resources
Lack of training at the outset of employment.	Lack of familiarity with workplace hazards.	N.A	3	2	1	5	3	4	4	1.155
Failure to determine the plans and responsibilities of individuals.	Lack of familiarity with HSE tasks and performing unsafe practices.	5	N.A	3	4	5	3	3	3	3.461
Failure to determine the qualification requirements for HSE to employ all the staff in the project.	Employing unqualified individuals and the occurrence of unsafe acts.	5	5	3	4	5	4	5	4	4.739
Failure to develop a special training program for all occupations.	Lack of awareness of specialized HSE information when conducting activities.	4	4	4	3	5	5	4	5	4.353

^† No index has been defined for this sub-parameter which concerns the identified risk sources. ^‡ Based on the construction of the semi-quantitative risk assessment technique, if the index of any of the incidence probability or severity parameters equals five, regardless of the final construction risk index, the risk level is estimated to be unacceptable.

and

Table 5. Results of HSE risk analysis in three areas, including project risk, project communication, and project procurement management.

Risk Source	Causes of Incidence	Incidence Probability				Incidence Severity				CRI
		Technical Inspection	Incidence Experience	Detection Probability	Human Reliability	Human Resources	Cost Imposition	Damage to Organization’s Credibility	Project Interruption
Project risk management
Lack of proper risk management planning (identifying stakeholders, legal requirements and risk assessment).	Lack of readiness to use the full capacity of risk management techniques to enter the identification stage.	N.A †	N.A	3	4	5	3	4	2	2.055
Inability to identify HSE risks.	Lack of incident data collection, and lack of risk identification meetings.	N.A	N.A	2	3	5	4	4	3	1.651
Lack of proper assessments to identify risks.	Failure to prioritize eliminating the identified risks.	N.A	N.A	2	3	5	4	4	3	1.651
Failure to formulate the necessary controls based on the risk control pyramid and failure to follow up on the implementation of control measures.	Lack of development of all, or parts of, the control methods, and a lack of readiness of the organization to deal with risk.	N.A	N.A	3	3	5	5	5	5	2.306 ‡
Project communication
Lack of using experienced HSE advisors.	Lack of specialized inspections of equipment and lack of determination of improvement methods.	N.A	N.A	4	4	5	4	3	3	2.416
Lack of executive methods and operation controls.	Failure to determine the risks associated with each executive operation.	N.A	N.A	3	2	5	5	5	5	1.827 ‡
Underuse of the HSE experiences of other projects.	Failure to register HSE records and use them in future projects.	N.A	3	2	3	5	5	5	5	2.306 ‡
Project procurement management
Failure to explicitly state HSE provisions in contracts.	Defects in contracts and lack of calculation of HSE provisions in the contract by the contractor, and lack of obligation to fulfill the requirements during execution.	N.A	N.A	3	2	5	5	5	5	1.827 ‡
Failure to announce and continuously monitor HSE executive regulations.	Lack of HSE disciplinary criteria for dealing with contractors.	N.A	N.A	2	3	5	4	4	5	1.802
Failure to timely supply personal protective equipment and other items related to HSE.	Inability of the project to reduce the risk of incidents.	N.A	2	2	2	5	5	5	5	1.741
Lack of contractor evaluations.	Lack of managing contractors.	N.A	N.A	4	4	5	4	5	5	2.901

^† No index has been defined for this sub-parameter which concerns the identified risk sources. ^‡ Based on the construction of the semi-quantitative risk assessment technique, if the index of any of the incidence probability or severity parameters equals five, regardless of the final construction risk index, the risk level is estimated to be unacceptable.

). These risks include (1) integrated project management (four risks), (2) project scope management (three risks), (3) project scheduling (five risks), (4) project cost management (three risks), (5) project quality (five risks), (6) human resources (four risks), (7) project risk management (four risks), (8) project communication (three risks), and (9) project procurement (four risks). The factors leading to the incident probability for each of the 37 risk sources have been presented in Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5.

The results of the HSE risk assessment for this construction project showed that the risk index for 20 risk sources was estimated to be at an unacceptable level, and it was at the ALARP level for 17 risk sources.

None of the risk sources had a risk index at an acceptable level. It is worth mentioning that ten risk sources, despite the estimated risk index of three, were placed at the unacceptable risk level, thus requiring immediate corrective measures.

Based on the results, out of the four identified risks in the area of integrated project management, the HSE risk level related to two risk sources was found to be at the ALARP level, and it was found to be unacceptable for the other two risk sources. Table 3 also revealed that the risk level of three identified risks under the project’s management was at the ALARP level. In addition, the risk level of four risk sources which pertained to project scheduling was at the ALARP level.

Moreover, the risk level regarding ‘not allocating time to make the environment safe before starting work’ (such as installing a lifeline) was assessed to be at unacceptable level (Table 3).

According to the results presented in Table 4, the level of risk of three risk sources related to project cost management was unacceptable, whereas for two risk sources, it was estimated to be at the ALARP level. The risk level of the five risk sources related to project quality was estimated to be at an unacceptable level. The results in this table also showed that the HSE risk of three sources regarding human resources in project management knowledge was unacceptable (Table 4).

As is shown in Table 5, one risk source in the area of project risk management was at an unacceptable level, whereas the risk level for the other three risks was estimated to be within the ALARP range. The results of the risk assessment related to project communication showed that the risk level of the two risk sources was assessed to be at an unacceptable level. Furthermore, the risk level of two risk sources in the project procurement area was found to be within the ALARP range, and it was assessed to be unacceptable for two other sources.

4. Discussion

Construction projects are one of the most hazardous and incident-prone industries due to their unique and dynamic nature [20,25,26]. A construction site is a dynamic, continuously evolving workplace that accommodates multiple groups and suppliers working in parallel. In addition, the impulsive nature of weather, deliveries, and unexpected events put pressure on stakeholders to manage tight deadlines and limit costs.

Effective safety management in construction projects is a core consideration for all types of organizations that are responsible for protecting and optimizing the efficiency of human resources. Concerning construction, ensuring workplace safety is not an easy task. Occupational accidents in the construction industry will have an impact on economic and social issues in organizations, as well as countries. The growth of the construction industry has been mitigated by accidents or injuries, which occur frequently. It has been calculated that around 60,000 construction fatalities occur worldwide annually, equaling one accident every nine minutes. Among all industries in the world, construction has the highest accident rate, including deaths and disabling damages [2,3].

The severity of the damage caused by construction projects is so great that creating a suitable platform for risk management and reducing incidents has become a national priority in many developed and developing countries [27,28]. Despite the very favorable turnover of construction projects, many construction worksites worldwide still do not provide good, safe conditions. Studies have shown that construction projects have a wide array of risk factors that lead to reduced safety levels and increased incident rates in the industry [1,29,30]. In these projects, each worker is directly exposed to a high volume of risk factors which contribute to incidents. In addition to causing human damage, the hazards associated with these projects can impact various aspects of the industry, such as a project’s existing costs, the quality of work, time scheduling, and organizational credibility [31].

Various studies revealed that the construction industry is one of the most dangerous, due to its exceptional and dynamic nature [32,33,34,35]. The severity of losses and damages caused by construction projects is such that creating a suitable platform for the risk management process, in order to reduce accidents in many developed and developing countries, has become a national priority [36]. In these projects, each person was directly exposed to a high volume of risk factors which can cause accidents. In addition to generating harm to human resources, the risks associated with these projects can affect various aspects of the industry, such as current project costs, quality of work, time management, the credibility of the organization, and so on. [37]. Other studies show that the mentioned risk factors include personal risks, occupational risks, environmental risks (unsafe conditions), unsafe acts, and managerial–organizational factors [38,39].

The study performed by O. Sanni-Anibire et al. revealed that the type of accident with the highest risk score involved “falling objects”, whereas the most significant cause was excessive winds on the project site. Their results showed that slips, trips, and falls had the best safety performance. Furthermore, using a six sigma evaluation, the average project safety performance was 2.33-sigma, which implies that 228,739 accidents may occur in every million opportunities [40].

The results of the current study showed that the existing risks, based on nine areas of the PMBOK, consist of integrated project management, project scope management, project scheduling, project cost management, project quality, human resources, project risk management, project communication, and project procurement. The results of the HSE risk assessment that were related to the Project Management Body of Knowledge also revealed that the risk index was estimated to be at an unacceptable level for 20 risk sources, and it was at an ALARP level for 17 risk sources; however, none of the identified risk sources were assessed as having an acceptable risk level, thus indicating the presence of high-risk levels in this industry.

The results of the HSE risk analysis of the construction project in this study were based on three areas of project management knowledge, including: integrated project management, project scope management, and project scheduling. Moreover, the results pointed to a lack of attention to the status and principles of HSE in all stages of the construction project. This is the most important principle for controlling the risk factors on the worksite, and one of the major reasons for the high frequency of incidents in the construction industry. This issue implies that most construction employers pay the least attention to the subject of HSE risk management in the initial and time scheduling phases of the project. One consequence that can increase the risk index is the impact on the scheduling of construction projects, which can create fundamental challenges for defined project scheduling. Some of these challenges include the deaths of key members of the project, and operational interruptions which occur until their replacements are found. The death or disability of employees, equipment damage, and project interruptions until these issues are resolved can cause a loss of employee morale. Moreover, long-term interruptions of the project may also occur due to governmental organization intervention as a result of non-compliance with HSE rules and regulations [27,28,41,42].

With regard to the importance of human resources, there are times when the incident involving the worker is simple and non-technical; sometimes, the same happens to the project manager or CEO. Obviously, the consequences of the incidents in the two cases are different. As such, in risk assessment, it should be made clear which of these two groups are exposed to incidents and how many human resources are exposed to them.

In addition, disregarding the issues related to risk management in financial management and project procurement can impose direct and indirect costs on the project. Failure to comply with safety precautions can cause high costs because of non-compliance with HSE regulations, monetary compensation for death, medical expenses, an increase in insurance rates, indirect costs due to reduced work efficiency, damage to equipment, and so on. [5,29]. The impact of incidents on the direct and indirect costs of the project is considered to be only a minor part of the consequences related to HSE risks and project costs; therefore, one of the most tangible ramifications of HSE risks lies with project costs. Failure to observe safety measures and the improper management of existing risks can lead to heavy financial costs for the project [42,43]. The results of this study also showed that paying attention to costs is of paramount importance in risk assessment and prioritization.

According to several studies of this nature, various factors affect the levels of HSE risks. The effect of HSE risks on quality in the study by Husin et al. [44], the effect of HSE risks on cost in the study by Ikpe et al. [45], and the effect of HSE risks on human resources in JW Garrett and Teizer [46], are examples of such studies.

In a study conducted by Debasish Majumder et al., the results revealed that FRA and FAHP approaches could evaluate the worksite’s actual status, and important hazards can be identified to motivate proprietors to invest in safety in their industry. With this technique, all the input parameters are measured in terms of fuzzy numerals (accident percentage, accident severity, and expenses of safety measures). The overall risk is calculated as the sum of the products of the RS and the weight of each body part in terms of damage sustained in an accident [13]; therefore, the use of management principles, as well as different and reliable mathematical methods, such as the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, can lead to a more accurate estimation of the risk levels in construction projects.

In today’s world, sustainability is attracting considerable attention as many governments have integrated it into their economic development strategies. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), sustainable development is defined as a strategy to “meet the requirements of the present world population without generating an adverse impact on health and the environment, and without consuming or endangering the global resource, therefore without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” Sustainable development depends on several regulations for preparing its actions, many of which can be involved in occupational health and safety. These principles include the necessity for attention to people’s health and quality of life, the prevention of known risks, and the application of precautions when there is uncertainty concerning certain dangers [16].

One of the ways with which to achieve sustainability is to preserve the safety of workers, especially in high-risk work environments, by assessing the relevant risks in accordance with the risks of work environments and in the form of management plans using a prospective and preventive approach. In this study, practical steps were taken to promote sustainable safety; a forward-looking approach was adopted by using project management concepts that addressed the types of risk in the construction industry.

The results of the study performed by Jilcha et al. revealed that innovations in workplace safety and health bring sustainable development via healthy people, a safer workplace, decreased costs associated with accidents, a controlled environment, managed workplace accidents, and improved workplace safety knowledge [47].

Hui Zhou et al. indicated that safety accidents cause significant losses of life and property, which expose the problems in construction management and hinder the sustainable development of society [1]. This issue reveals the need for innovation in the field of safety assessment and management in this industry.

However, the authors of the current study, in their literature review, found that no study deals with the various aspects of risk assessment, namely, the impact of risk on cost, quality, project scheduling, damage to the credibility of the organization, legal and criminal penalties, the importance of human resources, and the impact on human resources. It should be mentioned that since the present study was conducted in Iran (a developing country) and the safety levels observed in the construction industry in developed countries are much higher, it is suggested that the method used in these countries should be used with caution. It is also recommended that researchers in developed countries conduct studies in the future using a similar algorithm.

Considering that the issue of risk assessment is at the heart of the risk management concept, it is suggested that future studies consider the present method when making management decisions during construction projects.

The present study was performed in order to introduce and implement a unique approach that assesses construction projects’ safety risks, in accordance with the dynamic and specific characteristics of construction projects and activities that are based on the PMBOK and FAHP. This study determined the most critical factors affecting construction projects’ occupational accident frequency and severity. The present technique could be a practical step toward decreasing occupational accident risk levels in the construction industry and developing control plans, especially in developing countries, where there exists lower risk management performance.

One of the limitations of the current approach is that there is no quantitative method to calculate and evaluate the effective parameters pertaining to the construction industry’s probability and severity of risks; thus, it is suggested that researchers in the future develop and apply quantitative methods with the same algorithm as the present study. They should ensure that such methods are developed in line with safety management systems via international management guidelines.

5. Conclusions

The results of the current study indicate that the integration of HSE and PMBOK can improve the effectiveness of the risk assessment and management process. Identifying HSE-related risk sources in accordance with the nine areas of PMBOK, as well as using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to assess the risk of these hazards in a construction project, can help provide a more realistic estimation of the risk index in construction projects. Using the existing guidelines in various areas of project management knowledge, and integrating it with practical methods such as FAHP, can be an effective step toward creating a suitable and specialized operational algorithm. Using the developed model in the present study can be a practical step in evaluating risk sources and implementing effective control measures.