Abstract
The Fine–Kinney method (Fine in J Saf Res 3:157–166, 1971; Kinney and Wiruth in Practical risk analysis for safety management. Naval Weapons Center, pp 1–20, 1976), which was first introduced as an occupational health and safety risk analysis tool in the 1970s, is a systematic methodology that provides a mathematical formula for calculating the risk that arises due to a specified hazard. In the traditional version of Fine–Kinney as suggested in its original version, a risk score (RS) is calculated as a result of mathematical multiplication of probability (P), exposure (E), and consequence (C) parameters. These calculated risk scores are used to establish priorities for the corrective efforts in order to eliminate risks or reduce their effects to a reasonable level. This simple and useful method is preferred and implemented by small and medium-sized enterprises. In the academic literature, it has been applied for many risk analysis problems, although it includes several drawbacks recently revealed. In this method, no weight assignment is made for each risk parameter. Also, it is hard to assess consequence, exposure, and probability, precisely. Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) is a pool of methods used in occupational health and safety risk analysis both by international standard-setting organizations and scholars from the literature. In classical MCDM methods, performance values and weights of decision criteria are known precisely and are specified with crisp numbers. However, many real-world problems contain uncertainties, and the knowledge and judgment of experts cannot be expressed precisely. Fuzzy-based MCDM methods, which are developed to reflect types and degrees of uncertainties better, produce more accurate results compared to classical methods. In this chapter, we first present the basics of Fine–Kinney method, including its implementing procedure, basic terminology, and drawbacks. Then, we provide a state-of-the-art review of Fine–Kinney occupational risk assessment method and its extensions by fuzzy sets. Graphical results obtained from the review are demonstrated to show the current state. Future work suggestions are also included to the chapter to show the possible gaps and possible opportunities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Fine, W. T. (1971). Mathematical evaluations for controlling hazards. Journal of Safety Research, 3(4), 157–166.
Kinney, G. F., & Wiruth, A. D. (1976). Practical risk analysis for safety management (pp. 1–20). Naval Weapons Center.
Dickson, T. J. (2002). Calculating risks: Fine’s mathematical formula 30 years later. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 6(1), 31–39.
Birgören, B. (2017). Calculation challenges and solution suggestions for risk factors in the risk analysis method in the Fine Kinney risk analysis method. Uluslararası Mühendislik Araştırma ve Geliştirme Dergisi, 9(1), 19–25.
Gul, M. (2018). A review of occupational health and safety risk assessment approaches based on multi-criteria decision-making methods and their fuzzy versions. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 24(7), 1723–1760.
Kokangül, A., Polat, U., & Dağsuyu, C. (2017). A new approximation for risk assessment using the AHP and Fine Kinney methodologies. Safety Science, 91, 24–32.
Karasan, A., Ilbahar, E., Cebi, S., & Kahraman, C. (2018). A new risk assessment approach: Safety and Critical Effect Analysis (SCEA) and its extension with Pythagorean fuzzy sets. Safety Science, 108, 173–187.
Ilbahar, E., Karaşan, A., Cebi, S., & Kahraman, C. (2018). A novel approach to risk assessment for occupational health and safety using Pythagorean fuzzy AHP & fuzzy inference system. Safety Science, 103, 124–136.
Gul, M., Celik, E., & Akyuz, E. (2017). A hybrid risk-based approach for maritime applications: The case of ballast tank maintenance. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 23(6), 1389–1403.
Gul, M., Guven, B., & Guneri, A. F. (2018). A new Fine–Kinney-based risk assessment framework using FAHP-FVIKOR incorporation. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 53, 3–16.
Gul, M., Guneri, A. F., & Baskan, M. (2018). An occupational risk assessment approach for construction and operation period of wind turbines. Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 4(3), 281–298.
Wang, W., Liu, X., & Qin, Y. (2018). A fuzzy Fine–Kinney-based risk evaluation approach with extended MULTIMOORA method based on Choquet integral. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 125, 111–123.
Oturakçı, M., Dağsuyu, C., & Kokangül, A. (2015). A new approach to Fine Kinney method and an implementation study. Alphanumeric Journal, 3(2), 83–92.
Marhavilas, P. K., & Koulouriotis, D. E. (2008). A risk-estimation methodological framework using quantitative assessment techniques and real accidents’ data: Application in an aluminum extrusion industry. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 21(6), 596–603.
Gurcanli, G. E., Bilir, S., & Sevim, M. (2015). Activity based risk assessment and safety cost estimation for residential building construction projects. Safety Science, 80, 1–12.
Netro, Z. G. C., Romero, E. D. L. T., & Flores, J. L. M. (2018). Adaptation of the Fine–Kinney method in supply chain risk assessment. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, 174, 43–55.
Korkmaz, E., Iskender, G., & Babuna, F. G. (2016, October). Assessment of occupational health and safety for a gas meter manufacturing plant. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 44, No. 3, p. 032015). IOP Publishing.
Makajić-Nikolić, D., Kuzmanović, M., & Panić, B. (2018). Terrorism risks assessment of tourism destinations. In XIII Balkan Conference on Operational Research (BALCOR) (pp. 341–348). The Mathematical Institute of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Birgören, B. (2017). Calculation challenges and solution suggestions for risk factors in the risk analysis method in the Fine Kinney risk analysis method. International Journal of Engineering Research and Development, 9(1), 19–25.
Gul, M., & Celik, E. (2018). Fuzzy rule-based Fine–Kinney risk assessment approach for rail transportation systems. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 24(7), 1786–1812.
Supciller, A. A., & Abali, N. (2015). Occupational health and safety within the scope of risk analysis with fuzzy proportional risk assessment technique (fuzzy PRAT). Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 31(7), 1137–1150.
Oturakçı, M., & Dağsuyu, C. (2017). Fuzzy Fine–Kinney approach in risk assessment and an application. Karaelmas Journal of Occupational Health and Safety, 1(1), 17–25.
Yilmaz, F., & Ozcan, M. S. (2019). A risk analysis and ranking application for lifting vehicles used in construction sites with integrated AHP and Fine–Kinney approach. Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal, 13(3), 152–161.
Zhang, X., Xing, X., Xie, Y., Zhang, Y., Xing, Z., & Luo, X. (2019). Airport operation situation risk assessment: Combination method based on FAHP and Fine Kinney. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gul, M., Mete, S., Serin, F., Celik, E. (2021). Fine–Kinney Occupational Risk Assessment Method and Its Extensions by Fuzzy Sets: A State-of-the-Art Review. In: Fine–Kinney-Based Fuzzy Multi-criteria Occupational Risk Assessment. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, vol 398. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52148-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52148-6_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-52147-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-52148-6
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)