• Safety and Health at Work
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.339-345
• /
• 2021

Background: Some researchers state that they are not yet able to provide a deep understanding of the underlying causes of unsafe behaviors (UBs). Therefore, the present study was conducted to investigate the attitudes and experiences of Iranian workers of UBs. Methods: This present study was conducted in 35 industries using a semistructured interview based on grounded theory. Forty participants were interviewed, including 13 industrial safety and health experts and 27 workers and supervisors. The analysis of the present study consisted of a three-step coding process including open, axial, and selective coding. Results: The results showed that the factors affecting UBs could be classified into three categories: organizational, individual, and socioeconomic factors. Organizational factors were divided into 6 parts: procedure and environmental conditions, communications, monitoring, organizational safety culture, resource allocation, and human resources. Socioeconomic factors had three subcategories: community safety culture, type of organizational ownership, and economic problems. Finally, the individual factors were classified into two categories of personality traits and individual competence. Conclusion: The results showed that organizational factors were the most categorized, and it is estimated that this factor has a more important role in the UBs. Of course, to better understand the close relationship between these factors and find the weight and importance of each factor, it needs to measure it with multicriteria decision systems.

• Journal of Korean Society of Transportation
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.183-196
• /
• 2017

In this study, policy evaluation scheme was established to encourage the efficient implementation of EcoMobility which has been expanding gradually all around the world. A total of eight evaluation goals and 22 evaluation items are reviewed and suggested based on the three major evaluation categories of "Basic elements for EcoMobility", "Land use and transport system for EcoMobility", and "Implications and impact of EcoMobility". The results of this study are as follows: the result of AHP analysis which reflects only the hierarchical structure shows a high priority in "Elements for EcoMobility promotion", "Eco-fiendly transport infrastructure", and "Safety in transport". While in result of ANP which considered the elements' dependencies, "Eco-fiendly transport Services", "Welfare in transport", and "Environment by transport" have high weights and importances. In conclusion, this study would be useful to make reasonable judgment based on the analysis results of the two techniques in order to ensure reliability in evaluation of EcoMobility policy. Furthermore we have confirmed appropriate evaluation technique between AHP and ANP which is better to reflect the features of EcoMobility.