**6. Conclusions**

The technique of assigning priorities to various aspects of risk may unquestionably be of assistance to managers in devising strategies to reduce or eliminate the most significant risk factors via the utilization of preventive measures. A more efficient allocation of a limited budget may reduce costs associated with assistance and mortgages, and in general makes it possible for managers to have the budget available that can be used to reduce project risks to a greater extent. In addition to this, an effective allocation of a limited budget may reduce expenses associated with assistance and mortgages. The key contribution provided by this study is the application of a well-known multicriteria technique to ranking and prioritizing risks. In this case, the AHP was used to express judgments based on the decision-maker's experience and value system as it related to the analysis of risk factors for each activity in the construction of a natural gas compressor station.

This framework may be used as a guide to help prioritize the implementation of safety measures and the allocation of scarce resources in order to reduce the likelihood of as many accidents as possible. Not only might it be utilized as a teaching tool but it could also be used to help managers with less expertise make better judgments. It might also be used as a template for training newcomers and transferring knowledge from seasoned professionals to others with less expertise. The proposed approach benefits from ability to use the experience, knowledge, and intuition of the person making the decision when determining the weights of the elements. On the other hand, the subjective character of the modeling process is the fundamental flaw of this approach and, more generally, of similar multicriteria methods. This implies that the methodology cannot ensure that the judgments will be absolutely accurate.

Although the proposed method was successful, it might be enhanced by doing a sensitivity analysis on the risk manager's assessments of the second and third set of risks, i.e., those tasks in which the principal risk is associated with a relatively low overall score. As a result, the proposed framework may be honed to better fit the specific circumstances under investigation.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, G.K.K., O.E.D., G.G.B. and D.E.K.; data curation, G.K.K., O.E.D. and G.G.B.; formal analysis, G.K.K., O.E.D., G.G.B. and D.E.K.; investigation, G.K.K. and G.G.B.; methodology, G.K.K., O.E.D., G.G.B. and D.E.K.; software, G.K.K., O.E.D., G.G.B.; supervision, G.K.K. and D.E.K.; validation, G.K.K., O.E.D., G.G.B. and D.E.K.; visualization, G.K.K., O.E.D.; writing—original draft, G.K.K., O.E.D. and G.G.B.; Writing—review and editing, G.K.K., O.E.D. and D.E.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Data Availability Statement:** Some or all data, models, or codes that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
