An Applied Study on Integration Edges of Failure and TOPSIS to Educational Environment Safety Assessment: A Case Study

Document Type : Regular Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Civil Engineering, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran

3 Department of Engineering, Ale Taha Institute of Higher Education, 14888-36164, Tehran, Iran

4 School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University, Yonsei-ro 50, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, South Korea

10.22115/scce.2022.342342.1435

Abstract

A reliability and safety assessment for a bunch of listed schools can be challengeable for experts by the checklist system for safety reports. This paper aimed to respond to this challenge by merging the edges of failure 'EoF' and the technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution 'TOPSIS' to achieve an integrative approach for educational environment safety assessment. The qualitative assessment was implemented to detect safety faults in the case study area based on the results of the inspections. Then, the quantitative assessment was done to calculate critical points in edges of failure using the TOPSIS method. These points have been calculated for a bunch of listed schools that detected safety faults, and it also takes the form of the 'Jeopardous Pentagon' to calculate 'EoF Integration Mode'. It is an overall safety assessment to indicate performances region by region. This paper collected items of information about the twelve schools in Shahriar divided into three districts. Afterwards, a dangerous area is estimated to rank the existing options by the amount of achievement information. The first rank of the dangerous area between existence options is Shahriar two district. The most critical sides of the JP for first ranked reflect the human error 'RHE' and cultural governance 'CG' by values 0.989 and 0.989 for both intersection points. The combination of EoF and TOPSIS is recommended to apply for a physical and non-physical environment based on the safety checklist system.

Keywords

Main Subjects


[1]     Rezaie M. Evaluation of Safety Status to Shahriar Educational Environment by the Checklist System for Safety Reports. 6th Int. Reliab. Saf. Eng. Conf., Shiraz, Iran: Shiraz University; 2021.
[2]     Kayumova LR, Zakirova VG. Educational Environment Risks: Problems of Identification and Classification. Int J Environ Sci Educ 2016;11:1013–9.
[3]     Baeva IA, Laktionova EB. Expert assessment of the educational environment for comfort and safety. Psychol Sci Educ 2013.
[4]     Hartmann T. Engineering Informatics to Support Civil Systems Engineering Practice BT - Advanced Computing Strategies for Engineering. In: Smith IFC, Domer B, editors., Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018, p. 262–75.
[5]     Charles S. Columbia Disaster Underscores the Risky Nature of Risk Analysis. Science (80- ) 2003;299:1001–2. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.299.5609.1001.
[6]     Ma H, Chu X, Wang W, Liu X, Xue D. A directed failure causality network (DFCN) based method for function components risk prioritization under interval type-2 fuzzy environment. Adv Eng Informatics 2019;41:100920. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2019.100920.
[7]     Islam MS, Nepal MP, Skitmore M, Attarzadeh M. Current research trends and application areas of fuzzy and hybrid methods to the risk assessment of construction projects. Adv Eng Informatics 2017;33:112–31. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2017.06.001.
[8]     Tizani W, Mawdesley MJ. Advances and challenges in computing in civil and building engineering. Adv Eng Informatics 2011;25:569–72. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2011.08.006.
[9]     Mela K, Tiainen T, Heinisuo M. Comparative study of multiple criteria decision making methods for building design. Adv Eng Informatics 2012;26:716–26. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2012.03.001.
[10]   Zhang L, Wang T, Li H, Huang B, Zhou X. Agent evaluation based on multi-source heterogeneous information table using TOPSIS. Adv Eng Informatics 2019;42:100971. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2019.100971.
[11]   Jing L, Jiang S, Li J, Peng X, Ma J. A cooperative game theory based user-centered medical device design decision approach under uncertainty. Adv Eng Informatics 2021;47:101204. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2020.101204.
[12]   Ping Y-J, Liu R, Lin W, Liu H-C. A new integrated approach for engineering characteristic prioritization in quality function deployment. Adv Eng Informatics 2020;45:101099. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2020.101099.
[13]   Dong Y, Tan R, Zhang P, Peng Q, Shao P. Product redesign using functional backtrack with digital twin. Adv Eng Informatics 2021;49:101361. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2021.101361.
[14]   Mayer MJ, Furlong MJ. How Safe Are Our Schools? Educ Res 2010;39:16–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09357617.
[15]   Morrison GM, Furlong MJ, Morrison RL. School Violence to School Safety: Reframing the Issue for School Psychologists. School Psych Rev 1994;23:236–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1994.12085709.
[16]   Cornell DG. Threat assessment as a school violence prevention strategy. Criminol Public Policy 2020;19:235–52.
[17]   Cohen J. School safety and violence: Research and clinical understandings, trends, and improvement strategies. Int J Appl Psychoanal Stud 2021;18:252–63.
[18]   Arroyo Resino D, Sandoval-Hernandez A, Eryilmaz N. Characteristics of the schools resilient to violence. A study based on data from ICCS 2016 in Chile, Mexico and Colombia. Int J Educ Res 2021;109:101839. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101839.
[19]   Glew GM, Fan M-Y, Katon W, Rivara FP. Bullying and School Safety. J Pediatr 2008;152:123-128.e1. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.05.045.
[20]   Astor RA, Guerra N, van Acker R. How can we improve school safety research? Educ Res 2010;39:69–78. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09357619.
[21]   Bao Q, Ruan D, Shen Y, Hermans E, Janssens D. Improved hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS for road safety performance evaluation. Knowledge-Based Syst 2012;32:84–90.
[22]   Kikinezhdi OM, Zhyrska HY, Chip RS, Vasylkevych YZ, Hovorun T V. Psychology of the Gender-Equitable Environment: Research of Problems. J Intellect Disabil Treat 2020;8:538–47.
[23]   Rezaee M, Shamskia N. A Novel Design Model for Sustainable Development and Safety Management in the School Incident Command System (Case Study: Shahriar Schools). J Emerg Manag 2021;10:101–12.
[24]   Rezaie, M and Rajabalinejad M. Safety culture for schools; a comparative study. first Natl. Conf. Earthq. Risk Manag. with Vulnerability Approach Vital Struct. Arter., Tehran, Iran: Tehran University; 2017.
[25]   Fang S, Zhou P, Dinçer H, Yüksel S. Assessment of safety management system on energy investment risk using house of quality based on hybrid stochastic interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy decision-making approach. Saf Sci 2021;141:105333.
[26]   Khan MW, Ali Y, De Felice F, Petrillo A. Occupational health and safety in construction industry in Pakistan using modified-SIRA method. Saf Sci 2019;118:109–18.
[27]   Rezaie M. Designing an effective safety management system for schools (Descriptive analysis on the case study: schools’ Shahriar). Qom: Farzanegan-e-Danesh; 2018.
[28]   Ghasemi A, Nadiri M. Performance assessment of Iranian petrochemical companies using sustainable excellence model. Saf Sci 2016;87:280–91.
[29]   La Fata CM, Giallanza A, Micale R, La Scalia G. Ranking of occupational health and safety risks by a multi-criteria perspective: inclusion of human factors and application of VIKOR. Saf Sci 2021;138:105234.
[30]   Figueroa EAP, Malisan P, Grimaz S. Implementation of seismic assessment of schools in El Salvador. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2020;45:101449. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJDRR.2019.101449.
[31]   Grimaz S, Malisan P, TORRES PORRAS JJ. VISUS Methodology: A Quick Assessment for Defining Safety Upgrading Strategies of School Facilities. PLANET@RISK 2015;3:126–36.
[32]   Mubita K. Understanding School Safety and Security: Conceptualization and Definitions. J Lexicogr Terminol (Online ISSN 2664-0899 Print ISSN 2517-9306) 2021;5:76–86.
[33]   Akyildiz H, Mentes A. An integrated risk assessment based on uncertainty analysis for cargo vessel safety. Saf Sci 2017;92:34–43.
[34]   Irwin, V., Wang, K., Cui, J., Zhang, J., & Thompson A. Report on Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2020. 2021.
[35]   Rezaie, M and Rajabalinejad M. Risk management of schools: Identification, assessment and control the hazardous risks (Case study: School of Abu-Ali-Sina). 1st Int. Conf. Exhib. Iran. Sch. Iran Program. Provis. Sch. Space, Equipment, Technol., Yazd-World Heritage City, Iran: Yazd University; 2019.
[36]   Rezaie M, Rajabalinejad M. Introduce digital safety system model of construction management for high importance buildings: A case study on tehran municipality region one’s burgomasters. Int J Adv Sci Technol 2019;28:125–42.
[37]   Wright P, Fields B, Harrison M. Deriving human-error tolerance requirements from tasks. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Requir. Eng., IEEE; 1994, p. 135–42.
[38]   Reason J. Human error: models and management. Bmj 2000;320:768–70.
[39]   Rezaie, M Shamskia N. Response to safety culture challenge in civil engineering projects in order to prevented the hazardous circumstances future with used to Matrix decision model: (Case study: Shahriar firefighting & safety services organization). 6th Natl. Conf. Appl. Res. Civ. Eng. Archit. Urban Manag., Tehran, Iran: K. n. Toosi University of Technology; 2019.
[40]   Shabakhty N, Enferadi MH, Ghasemi MR, Varaee H. Application of Shape Memory Alloy Tuned Mass Damper in Vibration Control of Jacket type Offshore Structures. Iran J Mar Sci Technol 2020;7:64–75.
[41]   Barkhordari MA, Foroughi M, Aqaee SM, Varaee H. Introducing a method to enhance a poor rigid connection. Civil-Comp Proc 2010;93. https://doi.org/10.4203/ccp.93.119.
[42]   Varaee H, Ajdar S. A Comprehensive study for Lifeline network interaction under seismic conditions (Text in Persian). Conf. 3rd Int. Conf. Seism. Retrofit. Tabriz-Iran, 2010.
[43]   Varaee H, Shishegaran A, Ghasemi MR. The life-cycle cost analysis based on probabilistic optimization using a novel algorithm. J Build Eng 2021;43:103032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103032.
[44]   Lemly AD. Aquatic selenium pollution is a global environmental safety issue. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2004;59:44–56.
[45]   Agathokleous E. Environmental hormesis, a fundamental non-monotonic biological phenomenon with implications in ecotoxicology and environmental safety. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2018;148:1042–53.
[46]   Chen F, Wang J, Deng Y. Road safety risk evaluation by means of improved entropy TOPSIS–RSR. Saf Sci 2015;79:39–54.
[47]   Vidal R, Sánchez-Pantoja N. Method based on life cycle assessment and TOPSIS to integrate environmental award criteria into green public procurement. Sustain Cities Soc 2019;44:465–74.
[48]   Roy B. Paradigms and Challenges BT  - Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrogott M, editors., New York, NY: Springer New York; 2005, p. 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23081-5_1.
[49]   Tian G, Zhang H, Feng Y, Wang D, Peng Y. Green decoration materials selection under interior environment characteristics : A grey-correlation based hybrid MCDM method. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;81:682–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.08.050.
[50]   Zhang X, Zhang Q, Sun T, Zou Y, Chen H. Evaluation of urban public transport priority performance based on the improved TOPSIS method: A case study of Wuhan. Sustain Cities Soc 2018;43:357–65.
[51]   Yazdi M. Risk assessment based on novel intuitionistic fuzzy-hybrid-modified TOPSIS approach. Saf Sci 2018;110:438–48.
[52]   Doumpos, M., & Grigoroudis E. Multicriteria decision aid and artificial intelligence: links, theory and applications. John Wiley & Sons; 2013.
  • Receive Date: 14 May 2022
  • Revise Date: 28 July 2022
  • Accept Date: 31 August 2022
  • First Publish Date: 31 August 2022