The implementation of risk management for occupational health and safety is a fundamental requirement in all sectors. The occupational hazards and associated health consequences experienced by drivers in the public transport sector necessitate the implementation of proactive measures.
Objective
The objective of this paper is to propose a novel hybrid risk assessment model, based on spherical fuzzy sets, for the prioritization of prevalent occupational hazards among public transport drivers.
Methods
This study proposes the implementation of an integrated Fine-Kinney-based fuzzy occupational risk assessment model. This model incorporates the Alternative Ranking Technique based on Adaptive Standardized Intervals (ARTASI) approach and the Logarithmic Decomposition of Criteria Importance (LODECI) method. These are employed within the context of a spherical fuzzy environment. The integration of spherical fuzzy sets and the spherical fuzzy-Yager weighted arithmetic mean aggregation operator signifies a substantial advancement in the domain of occupational risk assessment. The amalgamation of these methodologies, in combination with the utilization of spherical fuzzy sets, culminates in the formulation of the proposed SFLOAR-Fine-Kinney hybrid model.
Results
The results obtained from the proposed model indicates that the potential occupational hazard PTH12 (Work stress) is the most significant hazard, with the highest utility function value of 97.69061, and PTH15 (Income/salary policies) is the least serious hazard, with the lowest utility function value of 76.40069.
Conclusions
The present study offers theoretical and managerial implications for researchers, professionals and policymakers working in the public transport sector by harmoniously integrating quantitative and qualitative perspectives and employing robust assessment techniques.
TanwarRAgarwalPK. Analysis of the determinants of service quality in the multimodal public transport system of Bhopal city using structural equation modelling (SEM) and factor analysis. Expert Syst Appl2024; 256: 124931.
2.
DongHMaSJiaN, et al.Understanding public transport satisfaction in post COVID-19 pandemic. Transp Policy (Oxf)2021; 101: 81–88.
3.
ChungYSWuHL. Stress, strain, and health outcomes of occupational drivers: an application of the effort reward imbalance model on Taiwanese public transport drivers. Trans Res Part F: Traffic Psych Behaviour2013; 19: 97–107.
4.
ILO. Technical meeting on the future of decent and sustainable work in urban transport services. International Labour Office, Sectoral Policies Department, Geneva, 2021.
5.
UsecheSAGómezVCendalesB, et al.Working conditions, job strain, and traffic safety among three groups of public transport drivers. Saf Health Work2018; 9: 454–461.
6.
SamereiSAghabaykKAkbarzadeMH. Underground metro drivers: occupational problems and job satisfaction. Urban Rail Transit2020; 6: 171–184.
7.
WeiCGerberichSGRyanAD, et al.Risk factors for unintentional occupational injury among urban transit bus drivers: a cohort longitudinal study. Ann Epidemiol2017; 27: 763–770.
8.
GolinkoVCheberyachkoSDeryuginO, et al.Assessment of the risks of occupational diseases of the passenger bus drivers. Saf Health Work2020; 11: 543–549.
9.
CendalesBEGómez-OrtizVUsecheSA, et al.Mental health outcomes among urban public transport workers: a systematic literature review. J Transp Health2024; 36: 101804.
10.
Af WåhlbergAEDornL. Absence behavior as traffic crash predictor in bus drivers. J Saf Res2009; 40: 197–201.
11.
PalaO. Assessment of the social progress on European Union by logarithmic decomposition of criteria importance. Expert Syst Appl2024; 238: 121846.
12.
PamucarDSimicVGörçünÖF, et al.Selection of the best Big Data platform using COBRAC-ARTASI methodology with adaptive standardized intervals. Expert Syst Appl2024; 239: 122312.
SmarandacheF. Neutrosophy: Neutrosophic probability, set, and logic: Analytic synthesis & synthetic analysis. Rehoboth: American Research Press, 1998.
16.
AlinejadSKhoshsepehrZNazarian-JashnabadiJ, et al.Leverage points in the bitcoin ecosystem: impact on price and climate change using dynamic systems and spherical fuzzy sets. Eng App of Art Intell2025; 149: 110390.
17.
YagerRR. Pythagorean fuzzy subsets. 2013 Joint IFSA World Congress and NAFIPS Annual Meeting (IFSA/NAFIPS), Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2013, 57–61, doi:10.1109/IFSA-NAFIPS.2013.6608375.
18.
KahramanCKutlu GündoğduF. From 1D to 3D membership: Spherical fuzzy sets. BOS/SOR 2018 Conference, Warsaw, Poland, 2018.
19.
Kutlu GündoğduFKahramanC. A novel fuzzy TOPSIS method using emerging interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets. Eng App of Art Intell2019; 85: 307–323.
20.
MathewMChakraborttyRKRyanMJ. A novel approach integrating AHP and TOPSIS under spherical fuzzy sets for advanced manufacturing system selection. Eng App of Art Intell2020; 96: 103988.
21.
SharafIM. Spherical fuzzy VIKOR with SWAM and SWGM operators for MCDM. Decision Making with Spherical Fuzzy Sets: Theory and Applications2021; 392: 217–240.
22.
NguyenPHDangTTNguyenKA, et al.Spherical fuzzy WASPAS-based entropy objective weighting for international payment method selection. Computers. Mater & Continua2022; 72: 2055–2075.
23.
ShahzadKAbdulDUmarM, et al.Analysis of obstacles to adoption of solar energy in emerging economies using spherical fuzzy AHP decision support system: a case of Pakistan. Energy Reports2023; 10: 381–395.
24.
HezamIMAliAMSallamK, et al.Assessment of wave energy location, technology, and converter toward sustainability using integrated spherical fuzzy MCDM approach. Case Stud in Therm Eng2024; 59: 104527.
25.
LiuQChenJYangK, et al.An integrating spherical fuzzy AHP and axiomatic design approach and its application in human–machine interface design evaluation. Eng App of Art Intell2023; 125: 106746.
26.
GulM. A review of occupational health and safety risk assessment approaches based on multi-criteria decision-making methods and their fuzzy versions. Hum Ecol Risk Assess: An International Journal2018; 24: 1723–1760.
27.
AyvazBTatarVSağırZ, et al.An integrated fine-kinney risk assessment model utilizing fermatean fuzzy AHP-WASPAS for occupational hazards in the aquaculture sector. Process Saf Environ Prot2024; 186: 232–251.
28.
GulMLoHWYucesanM. Fermatean fuzzy TOPSIS-based approach for occupational risk assessment in manufacturing. Complex & Intell Syst2021; 7: 2635–2653.
29.
MohandesSRZhangX. Towards the development of a comprehensive hybrid fuzzy-based occupational risk assessment model for construction workers. Saf Sci2019; 115: 294–309.
30.
IlbaharEKaraşanACebiS, et al.A novel approach to risk assessment for occupational health and safety using pythagorean fuzzy AHP & fuzzy inference system. Saf Sci2018; 103: 124–136.
31.
ChalakMHBahramiazarGRasaeeJ, et al.Occupational health risk assessment at healthcare institutions: developing a semi-quantitative risk method. Int J Risk & Safety Med2021; 32: 265–278.
32.
CombertiLDemichelaM. Customised risk assessment in manufacturing: a step towards the future of occupational safety management. Saf Sci2022; 154: 105809.
33.
ChenPZhangZHuangY, et al.Risk assessment of marine accidents with fuzzy Bayesian networks and causal analysis. Ocean Coast Manag2022; 228: 106323.
34.
TatarVYaziciogluOAyvazB. A novel risk assessment model for work-related musculoskeletal disorders in tea harvesting workers. J Intell Fuzzy Syst2023; 44: 2305–2323.
35.
ChenQYLiuHCWangJH, et al.New model for occupational health and safety risk assessment based on fermatean fuzzy linguistic sets and CoCoSo approach. Appl Soft Comput2022; 126: 109262.
36.
SekerS. A novel risk assessment approach using a hybrid method based on Fine–Kinney and extended MCDM methods under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Int J Inf Tech Dec Mak2022; 21: 1591–1616.
37.
KaramustafaMCebiS. Extension of safety and critical effect analysis to neutrosophic sets for the evaluation of occupational risks. Appl Soft Comput2021; 110: 107719.
38.
LiuRHouLXLiuHC, et al.Occupational health and safety risk assessment using an integrated SWARA-MABAC model under bipolar fuzzy environment. Comput Appl Math2020; 39: 276.
39.
TangJLiuXWangW. A hybrid risk prioritization method based on generalized TODIM and BWM for Fine-Kinney under interval type-2 fuzzy environment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess: An International Journal2021; 27: 954–979.
40.
LiuRZhuYJChenY, et al.Occupational health and safety risk assessment using an integrated TODIM-PROMETHEE model under linguistic spherical fuzzy environment. Int J Intell Syst2021; 36: 6814–6836.
41.
LiHWangYChongD, et al.Fine-Kinney fuzzy-based occupational health risk assessment for workers in different construction trades. Autom Constr2024; 168: 105738.
42.
SamereiSAAghabaykKSoltaniA. Occupational health and job satisfaction assessment of bus rapid transit (BRT) drivers. J Pub Trans2022; 24: 100002.
43.
UsecheSAOrtizVGCendalesBE. Stress-related psychosocial factors at work, fatigue, and risky driving behavior in bus rapid transport (BRT) drivers. Acc Analy & Prev2017; 104: 106–114.
44.
HuBWuYPanY, et al.Association of long working hours and multi-site work-related musculoskeletal disorders among transportation industry workers in Beijing, China. Int Arch Occup Environ Health2024; 97: 1063–1071.
45.
WangYWengSLinD, et al. Sleep quality and nighttime sleep duration mediated the association between occupational stress and work-related musculoskeletal disorders among bus drivers. BMC Public Health2025; 25: 1–10.
46.
ThangamuthuMHanumegowdaPKGnanasekaranS, et al.Assessment of musculoskeletal disorders among bus drivers in South India: implications for health and safety. Int J Occup Saf Ergon2025; 31: 1014–1024.
47.
De MatteisSCanceddaVPiliaI, et al.COVID-19 incidence in a cohort of public transport workers. Med Lav2022; 113: e2022039.
48.
HuSRChenSY. Effects of mixed traffic and elderly passengers on city bus drivers’ work-related fatigue. Trans Res Part F: Traffic Psych Behaviour2019; 66: 485–500.
49.
RahmaniRAliabadiMGolmohammadiR, et al.Body physiological responses of city bus drivers subjected to noise and vibration exposure in working environment. Heliyon2022; 8: e10329.
50.
QuichuaLTrejoDCBasilioMR, et al.Overweight and obesity among workers of the public transportation service of Lima. The Open Pub Health Journal2021; 14: 154–159.
51.
IhlströmJKecklundGAnundA. Split-shift work in relation to stress, health and psychosocial work factors among bus drivers. Work2017; 56: 531–538.
52.
TuZHeJZhouN, et al.Driver-passenger communicative stress and psychological distress among Chinese bus drivers: the mediating effect of job burnout. BMC Public Health2021; 21: 547.
53.
FernandesMRAntonioDSLauxRC. Health perception and physical activity level profile of bus drivers of urban public transportation in Chapecó-SC. Rev Bras Med Trab2024; 22: e2022958.
54.
HeberleSMLoriniCRosaMS, et al.Evaluation of bus driver exposure to nitrogen dioxide levels during working hours. Atmos Environ2019; 216: 116906.
55.
CanuIGWildPCharreauT, et al.Long-term exposure to PM10 and respiratory health among Parisian subway workers. Int J of Hyg Env Health2024; 256: 114316.
56.
Nowakowicz-DębekBPawlakHWlazłoŁ, et al.Evaluating bioaerosol exposure among bus drivers in the public transport sector. J Occup Env Hygiene2017; 14: D169–D172.
57.
RemyVFMAntoineBCanuIG. The bus-ergonomics matrix for comprehensive evaluation of buses and bus drivers’ exposure. Appl Ergon2025; 128: 104550.
58.
SumritD. Unveiling the effects of big data analytic capability on improving healthcare supply chain resilience: an integrated MCDM with spherical fuzzy information approach. Results in Engineering2025; 25: 104499.
59.
WangWHanXDingW, et al.A Fermatean fuzzy Fine–Kinney for occupational risk evaluation using extensible MARCOS with prospect theory. Eng Appl Art Intell2023; 117: 105518.
60.
GulMCelikE. Fuzzy rule-based Fine–Kinney risk assessment approach for rail transportation systems. Hum Ecol Risk Assess: An International Journal2018; 24: 1786–1812.
61.
WangYWangWDeveciM, et al.An integrated interval-valued spherical fuzzy Choquet integral based decision making model for prioritizing risk in Fine-Kinney. Eng Appl Art Intell2024; 127: 107437.
62.
WangWDingLLiuX, et al.An interval 2-Tuple linguistic Fine-Kinney model for risk analysis based on extended ORESTE method with cumulative prospect theory. Inf Fusion2022; 78: 40–56.
63.
Kutlu GündoğduFKahramanC. A novel spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and its renewable energy application. Soft Comput2020; 24: 4607–4621.
64.
ChinramRAshrafSAbdullahS, et al.Decision support technique based on spherical fuzzy Yager aggregation operators and their application in wind power plant locations: a case study of Jhimpir, Pakistan. J Math2020; 1: 8824032.
65.
YalçınGCKaraKSenapatiT. A hybrid spherical fuzzy logarithmic decomposition of criteria importance and alternative ranking technique based on adaptive standardized intervals model with application. Dec Analy J2024; 11: 100441.
66.
AshrafSAbdullahS. Spherical aggregation operators and their application in multiattribute group decision-making. Int J Intell Syst2019; 34: 493–523.
67.
SzetoGPLamP. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders in urban bus drivers of Hong Kong. J Occup Reh2007; 17: 181–198.
68.
BrunoroCSznelwarLIBolisI, et al.Contributions of ergonomics to the construction of bus drivers health and excellence in public transport and at work. Work2012; 41: 30–35.
69.
BhattBSeemaMS. Occupational health hazards: a study of bus drivers. J Health Man2012; 14: 201–206.
70.
KresalFRoblekVJermanA, et al.Lower back pain and absenteeism among professional public transport drivers. Int J Occup Saf Erg2015; 21: 166–172.
71.
Varela-MatoVYatesTStenselDJ, et al.Time spent sitting during and outside working hours in bus drivers: a pilot study. Prev Med Rep2016; 3: 36–39.
72.
PetersSEGroganHHendersonGM, et al.Working conditions influencing drivers’ safety and well-being in the transportation industry: “on board” program. Int J Env Res Pub Health2021; 18: 10173.
73.
AkinlotanODrewryH. Factors that influence the mental health of bus drivers: a systematic review. Ment Health Prev2024; 35: 200355.
74.
ChenCFSihJ. How job stressors and economic stressors impact public transport drivers’ performance and well-being under the health risk of the COVID-19 pandemic. J Saf Res2024; 88: 354–365.
75.
JakobsenMDGlies Vincents SeebergKMøllerM, et al.Influence of occupational risk factors for road traffic crashes among professional drivers: systematic review. Transport Reviews2023; 43: 533–563.
76.
AmoaduMAnsahEWSarfoJO. Psychosocial work factors, road traffic accidents and risky driving behaviours in low-and middle-income countries: a scoping review. IATSS Research2023; 47: 240–250.
77.
GulMMeteSSerinF, et al.Fine–Kinney-based occupational risk assessment using intuitionistic fuzzy TODIM. Fine–Kinney-Based Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Occupational Risk Assessment: Approaches, Case Studies and Python Applications2021; 398: 69–89.
78.
AhlströmC.Lövgren, et al. The effect of an active steering system on city bus drivers’ muscle activity. Int J Occup Saf and Erg. 2019; 25, 377–385.
79.
GorcunOFSenthilSKüçükönderH. Evaluation of tanker vehicle selection using a novel hybrid fuzzy MCDM technique. Dec Mak: Appl Man Eng2021; 4: 140–162.
