Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A fuzzy decision-making approach to analyze the design principles for green ergonomics

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Green ergonomics reflects on the bi-directional interaction between natural and human structures to ensure the well-being and efficacy of human and social systems. The concept of green ergonomics involves a number of principles, whose importance has become increasingly recognized in recent years. The green ergonomics compliance degree of a company is strongly related to how closely it adheres to these principles. Thus, the main objective of this study was to determine which of these principles and sub-principles take priority. Understanding them can only be achieved by determining their relative importance with respect to each other. For this prioritization, the study utilized the hesitant fuzzy analytic hierarchy process as one of the multi-criteria decision-making approaches to calculate the weight of the green ergonomics framework principles. The hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set approach was adopted to develop especially for the cases where experts hesitate during the decision-making process. With the participation of three experts, this paper determined the most critical principle to be “acknowledge how natural systems value design.” The findings of this study can be utilized in a number of ways, such as helping company managers to formulate green ergonomics strategies, presenting a guideline for companies and raising awareness about the relationship between green ergonomics and sustainability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jastrzebowski W (1857) An outline of ergonomics, or the science of work. Central Institute for Labour Protection, Varsóvia

  2. Karwowski W (2006) The discipline of ergonomics and human factors. In: Salvendy G (ed) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 3–31

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hancock PA (1997) Essays on the future of human–machine systems. Banta, Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  4. Moray N (1995) Ergonomics and the global problems of the twenty-first century. Ergonomics 38(8):1691–1707

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brown O, Hendrick HW (1986) Human factors in organizational design and management-II. North-Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  6. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Tengö M, Bennett EM, Holland T, Benessaiah K, Pfeifer L (2010) Untangling the environmentalist’s paradox: why is human well-being increasing as ecosystem services degrade? Bioscience 60(8):576–589

    Google Scholar 

  7. Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2010) The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. Ecosyst Ecol 1:110–139

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hanson M (2010) Green ergonomics: embracing the challenges of climate change. In: Contemporary ergonomics and human factors 2010, proceedings of the annual conference of the institute of ergonomics and human factors (p 3)

  9. Hanson MA (2013) Green ergonomics: challenges and opportunities. Ergonomics 56(3):399–408

    Google Scholar 

  10. Thatcher A (2013) Green ergonomics: definition and scope. Ergonomics 56(3):389–398

    Google Scholar 

  11. Thatcher A, Garcia-Acosta G, Lange Morales K (2013) Design principles for green ergonomics. Contemp Ergonom Hum Factors 1:319–326

    Google Scholar 

  12. Haslam R, Waterson P (2013) Ergonomics and sustainability. Ergonomics 56(3):343–347

    Google Scholar 

  13. Martin K, Legg S, Brown C (2013) Designing for sustainability: ergonomics–carpe diem. Ergonomics 56(3):365–388

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dekker SW, Hancock PA, Wilkin P (2013) Ergonomics and sustainability: towards an embrace of complexity and emergence. Ergonomics 56(3):357–364

    Google Scholar 

  15. Munguía Vega NE, Flores Borboa VS, Zepeda Quintana DS, Velazquez Contreras LE (2019) Assessing the effectiveness of integrating ergonomics and sustainability: a case study of a Mexican maquiladora. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 25(4):587–596

    Google Scholar 

  16. Sadeghi Naeini H (2020) Ergonomics on the context of sustainability: a new approach on quality of life. Iran Univ Sci Technol 30(2):260–271

    Google Scholar 

  17. Zink KJ, Fischer K (2013) Do we need sustainability as a new approach in human factors and ergonomics? Ergonomics 56(3):348–356

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bolis I, Brunoro CM, Sznelwar LI (2014) Work in corporate sustainability policies: the contribution of ergonomics. Work 49(3):417–431

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lange-Morales K, Thatcher A, García-Acosta G (2014) Towards a sustainable world through human factors and ergonomics: it is all about values. Ergonomics 57(11):1603–1615

    Google Scholar 

  20. Radjiyev A, Qiu H, Xiong S, Nam K (2015) Ergonomics and sustainable development in the past two decades (1992–2011): research trends and how ergonomics can contribute to sustainable development. Appl Ergon 46:67–75

    Google Scholar 

  21. Thatcher A (2012) Early variability in the conceptualisation of “sustainable development and human factors.” Work 41(Suppl1):3892–3899

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Tosi F (2012) Ergonomics and sustainability in the design of everyday use products. Work 41(Suppl 1):3878–3882

    Google Scholar 

  23. Poon WC, Herath G, Sarker A, Masuda T, Kada R (2016) River and fish pollution in Malaysia: a green ergonomics perspective. Appl Ergon 57:80–93

    Google Scholar 

  24. Herrera F, Martinez L, Rodríguez RM (2011) Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Adv Intell Soft Comput 122:287–295

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gou X, Xu Z, Liao H (2017) Hesitant fuzzy linguistic entropy and cross-entropy measures and alternative queuing method for multiple criteria decision making. Inform Sci 388–389:225–246

    Google Scholar 

  26. Rodriguez RM, Martinez L, Herrera F (2012) Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 20(1):109–119. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2011.2170076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Liu H, Rodríguez RM (2014) A fuzzy envelope for hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set and its application to multicriteria decision making. Inf Sci 258:220–238

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Dağdeviren M, Yavuz S, Kılınç N (2009) Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 36(4):8143–8151

    Google Scholar 

  29. Adem A, Çakit E, Dağdeviren M (2020) Occupational health and safety risk assessment in the domain of Industry 4.0. SN Appl Sci 2(5):1–6

    Google Scholar 

  30. Saaty TL (1980) The analytical hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York (NY)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Şenol MB, Adem A, Dağdeviren M (2019) A fuzzy MCDM approach to determine the most influential logistic factors. Politek Dergisi 22(3):793–800

    Google Scholar 

  32. Yavuz M, Oztaysi B, Cevik Onar S, Kahraman C (2015) Multi-criteria evaluation of alternative-fuel vehicles via a hierarchical hesitant fuzzy linguistic model. Expert Syst Appl 42(5):2835–2848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rodriguez RM, Martinez L, Herrera F (2013) A group decision making model dealing with comparative linguistic expressions based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Inf Sci 241:28–42

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Gou X, Liao H, Xu Z, Herrera F (2017) Double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set and MULTIMOORA method: a case of study to evaluate the implementation status of haze controlling measures. Inform Fusion 38:22–34

    Google Scholar 

  35. Zhang Y, Xu Z (2019) Efficiency evaluation of sustainable water management using the HF-TODIM method. Int Trans Oper Res 26(2):747–764

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. Liao H, Wu X, Mi X, Herrera F (2020) An integrated method for cognitive complex multiple experts multiple criteria decision making based on ELECTRE III with weighted Borda rule, Omega (United Kingdom), vol 93, p 102052

  37. Narayanamoorthy S, Geetha S, Rakkiyappan R, Joo YH (2019) Interval-valued intuitionistic hesitant fuzzy entropy based VIKOR method for industrial robots selection. Expert Syst Appl 121:28–37

    Google Scholar 

  38. Xian S, Guo H (2020) Novel supplier grading approach based on interval probability hesitant fuzzy linguistic TOPSIS. Eng Appl Artif Intell 87:103299

    Google Scholar 

  39. Topraklı AY, Adem A, Dağdeviren M (2016) A Courthouse site selection method using hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set: a case study for Turkey. Proc Comput Sci 102:603–610

    Google Scholar 

  40. Adem A, Dağdeviren M (2016) A life insurance policy selection via hesitant fuzzy linguistic decision making model. Proc Comput Sci 102:398–405

    Google Scholar 

  41. Beskese A, Camci A, Temur GT, Erturk E (2020) Wind turbine evaluation using the hesitant fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS method with a case in Turkey. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 38(1):997–1011

    Google Scholar 

  42. Liang RX, Wang JQ, Zhang HY (2018) Projection-based PROMETHEE methods based on hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Int J Fuzzy Syst 20(7):2161–2174

    Google Scholar 

  43. Liu Z, Ming X, Song W (2019) A framework integrating interval-valued hesitant fuzzy DEMATEL method to capture and evaluate co-creative value propositions for smart PSS. J Clean Prod 215:611–625

    Google Scholar 

  44. Darko AP, Liang D (2020) An extended COPRAS method for multiattribute group decision making based on dual hesitant fuzzy Maclaurin symmetric mean. Int J Intell Syst 35(6):1021–1068

    Google Scholar 

  45. Wang X, Gou X, Xu Z (2020) Assessment of traffic congestion with ORESTE method under double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic environment. Appl Soft Comput J 86:105864

    Google Scholar 

  46. Dağdeviren M, Eren T (2001) Tedarikçi firma seçiminde analitik hiyerarşi prosesi ve 0–1 hedef programlama yöntemlerinin kullanılması. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 16(1)

  47. Dağdeviren M, Yüksel İ (2008) Developing a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model for behavior-based safety management. Inf Sci 178(6):1717–1733

    Google Scholar 

  48. Adem A, Alıcıoğlu G, Dağdeviren M (2019) An integrated approach for prioritizing the dealers on the basis of organizational performance measurements. Endüstri Mühendisliği 30(1):49–62

    Google Scholar 

  49. Yazdi M, Korhan O, Daneshvar S (2020) Application of fuzzy fault tree analysis based on modified fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS for fire and explosion in the process industry. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 26(2):319–335

    Google Scholar 

  50. Jain V, Sangaiah AK, Sakhuja S, Thoduka N, Aggarwal R (2018) Supplier selection using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS: a case study in the Indian automotive industry. Neural Comput Appl 29(7):555–564

    Google Scholar 

  51. Kaya SK, Aycin E (2021) An integrated interval type 2 fuzzy AHP and COPRAS-G methodologies for supplier selection in the era of Industry 4.0. Neural Comput Appl 1–21

  52. Maiers J, Sherif YS (1985) Applications of fuzzy set theory. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 1:175–189

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Adem A, Colak A, Dagdeviren M (2018) An integrated model using SWOT analysis and Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set for evaluation occupational safety risks in life cycle of wind turbine. Saf Sci 106:184–190

    Google Scholar 

  54. Herrera F, Martínez L (2000) A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 8(6):46–752

    Google Scholar 

  55. Skřehot P, Marek J, Houser F (2017) Ergonomic aspects in control rooms. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 18(1):46–58

    Google Scholar 

  56. Sarker A, Poon WC, Herath G (2018) Natural resource use, institutions, and green ergonomics. In: Ergonomics and human factors for a sustainable future,. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore, pp 271–297

  57. Chen CT (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 114(1):1–9

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  58. Kahraman C, Ruan D, Doǧan I (2003) Fuzzy group decision-making for facility location selection. Inf Sci 157:135–153

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  59. Shih HS, Shyur HJ, Lee ES (2007) An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Math Comput Model 45(7–8):801–813

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Engineering, Gazi University, 06570, Ankara, Turkey

    Aylin Adem, Erman Çakıt & Metin Dağdeviren

Authors
  1. Aylin Adem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erman Çakıt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Metin Dağdeviren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erman Çakıt.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Adem, A., Çakıt, E. & Dağdeviren, M. A fuzzy decision-making approach to analyze the design principles for green ergonomics. Neural Comput & Applic 34, 1373–1384 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06494-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06494-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation