فصلنامه علمی توسعه پایدار محیط جغرافیایی

فصلنامه علمی توسعه پایدار محیط جغرافیایی

توسعه شاخص IHSE-UI برای ارزیابی یکپارچه HSE پارک‌های شهری مبتنی بر عملکرد، ریسک و پایداری تصمیم تحت عدم‌قطعیت

مقالات آماده انتشار

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان
اکبر قدوسیان 1
صابر قاسمی 2
1 گروه محیط زیست، واحد بندر عباس، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، بندرعباس، ایران
2 گروه محیط زیست، برنامه نظام موضوعات دریا، واحد بندر عباس، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، بندرعباس، ایران
10.48308/sdge.2026.245245.1329
چکیده
مقدمه: ارزیابی سلامت، ایمنی و محیط‌زیست (HSE) در پارک‌های شهری معمولاً بر شاخص‌های عملکردی متمرکز است و عدم‌قطعیت موجود در فرآیند تصمیم‌گیری و ریسک‌های زیرساختی را به‌صورت صریح در نظر نمی‌گیرد. این محدودیت می‌تواند منجر به برداشت ناقص از وضعیت واقعی HSE، کاهش قابلیت اعتماد نتایج و اولویت‌بندی‌های مدیریتی کم‌دقت شود. در سال‌های اخیر، اگرچه استفاده از روش‌های تصمیم‌گیری چندمعیاره فازی به‌طور گسترده توسعه یافته است، اما اغلب مطالعات، تحلیل حساسیت را صرفاً به‌عنوان یک آزمون اعتبارسنجی گزارش کرده‌اند و آن را در ساختار شاخص نهایی وارد نکرده‌اند. همچنین، ارزیابی عملکرد و ارزیابی ریسک معمولاً به‌صورت مستقل انجام شده و تعامل میان این دو بعد همراه با پایداری تصمیم مورد توجه قرار نگرفته است. بر این اساس، پژوهش حاضر با هدف توسعه یک چارچوب ارزیابی مبتنی بر عدم‌قطعیت، شاخص یکپارچه عدم‌قطعیت سلامت، ایمنی و محیط‌زیست (IHSE-UI) را برای ارزیابی پارک‌های شهری ارائه می‌کند؛ شاخصی که عملکرد، ریسک و پایداری تصمیم را در قالب یک ساختار یکپارچه تلفیق می‌کند.
مواد و روش‌ها: این پژوهش مبتنی بر داده‌های HSE، 11 پارک شهری بندر چابهار انجام شد. در گام نخست، اهمیت نسبی 28 شاخص HSE از طریق تلفیق نیازهای کاربران و قضاوت خبرگان با استفاده از رویکرد گسترش عملکرد کیفیت (QFD) تعیین شد. سپس عملکرد پارک‌ها با بهره‌گیری از روش F.TOPSIS ارزیابی و مؤلفه عملکرد (P) استخراج گردید. به‌منظور مدل‌سازی عدم قطعیت، تحلیل حساسیت یک‌متغیره (OAT) در 56 سناریوی تغییر وزن اجرا و مؤلفه پایداری تصمیم (S) محاسبه شد. همچنین ریسک تجهیزات و زیرساخت‌ها با استفاده از روش FMEA ارزیابی و به مؤلفه ریسک (R) تبدیل گردید. در نهایت، شاخص IHSE-UI از ادغام سه مؤلفه عملکرد، پایداری و ریسک توسعه یافت.
نتایج و بحث: نتایج وزن‌دهی QFD نشان داد شاخص‌های مرتبط با ایمنی تجهیزات، ایمنی زیرساخت‌ها و خدمات بهداشتی بیشترین اهمیت را در ادراک کاربران از کیفیت HSE دارند. ارزیابی F.TOPSIS نشان داد پارک بانوان (P5) با ضریب نزدیکی 59/0 دارای بهترین عملکرد HSE و پارک آزادگان (P4) با مقدار 38/0 دارای ضعیف‌ترین عملکرد است. تحلیل حساسیت بیانگر پایداری بالای رتبه‌بندی بود، به‌طوری‌که مقدار مؤلفه پایداری برای تمامی پارک‌ها بیش از 98/0 به دست آمد. نتایج ارزیابی ریسک نیز نشان داد پارک بانوان کمترین سطح ریسک (R=0.05) و پارک شادی (P3) بیشترین سطح ریسک (R=0.95) را دارا هستند. پس از ادغام سه مؤلفه در قالب شاخص IHSE-UI، دامنه نتایج از 019/0 تا 558/0 تغییر کرد. پارک بانوان با مقدار 558/0 در رتبه نخست قرار گرفت، و پارک شادی به دلیل ریسک بالای زیرساختی به ضعیف‌ترین گزینه سیستم تبدیل شد. ضریب همبستگی رتبه‌ای اسپیرمن بین رتبه‌بندی F.TOPSIS و IHSE-UI برابر با «ρ=0.945» بود که ضمن تأیید سازگاری مدل، نشان‌دهنده توانایی آن در انعکاس اثرات ریسک و عدم قطعیت در ارزیابی نهایی است.
نتیجه‌گیری: یافته‌ها نشان دادند که وضعیت واقعی HSE پارک‌های شهری صرفاً تابع عملکرد مشاهده‌شده نیست، بلکه از برهم‌کنش میان عملکرد، ریسک و پایداری تصمیم در شرایط عدم قطعیت شکل می‌گیرد. مهم‌ترین دستاورد روش‌شناختی پژوهش در تبدیل نتایج تحلیل حساسیت به یک مؤلفه عملیاتی و ادغام آن با ارزیابی عملکرد و ریسک در قالب شاخص IHSE-UI است. چارچوب پیشنهادی قابلیت گذار از ارزیابی متعارف عملکردمحور به ارزیابی یکپارچه عملکرد-ریسک-پایداری را فراهم کرده و می‌تواند به‌عنوان یک ابزار تصمیم‌یار برای اولویت‌بندی مداخلات، تخصیص منابع و مدیریت مبتنی بر ریسک در پارک‌ها و سایر زیرساخت‌های شهری مورد آزمایش و استفاده قرار گیرد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
سلامت ایمنی و محیط‌زیست (HSE)
پارک‌های شهری
مدل‌سازی عدم‌قطعیت
تصمیم‌گیری چندمعیاره
IHSE-UI
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Development of the IHSE-UI for Integrated HSE Assessment of Urban Parks Based on Performance, Risk, and Decision Stability Under Uncertainty

نویسندگان English

Akbar Ghodousiyan 1
Saber Ghasemi 2
1 Department of Environment, Bandar Abbas Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bandar Abbas, Iran
2 Department of Environment, Thematic Scientific Program for Marine Studies, Bandar Abbas Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bandar Abbas, Iran
چکیده English

Introduction: Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) assessments of urban parks have traditionally relied on performance-oriented indicators while largely overlooking the influence of decision uncertainty and infrastructure-related risks. Consequently, conventional multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approaches may produce rankings that inadequately reflect the actual HSE status of urban public spaces, particularly when expert-based weighting schemes and heterogeneous field data introduce uncertainty into the evaluation process. Addressing this limitation requires assessment frameworks capable of integrating performance, risk, and decision robustness within a unified decision-support structure. Accordingly, this study proposes an Integrated Health, Safety and Environment Uncertainty Index (IHSE-UI) that explicitly incorporates uncertainty into HSE evaluation and provides a more reliable basis for prioritizing urban park management interventions.
Materials and Methods: The proposed framework was applied to 11 urban parks in Chabahar, Iran. First, the relative importance of 28 HSE indicators was determined by integrating user requirements and expert judgments through the Quality Function Deployment (QFD) approach. Park performance was then evaluated using Fuzzy TOPSIS, and the performance component (P) was derived from the closeness coefficients. To quantify decision uncertainty, a One-at-a-Time (OAT) sensitivity analysis was conducted under 56 weight-variation scenarios, and a decision stability component (S) was calculated. Infrastructure and equipment risks were assessed using Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), and the resulting Risk Priority Numbers were transformed into a risk component (R). Finally, the IHSE-UI was developed by integrating the three complementary dimensions of performance, stability, and risk.
Results and Discussion: QFD results indicated that indicators related to equipment safety, infrastructure safety, and sanitation services had the highest influence on users’ perceptions of HSE quality. Fuzzy TOPSIS identified the Women's Park (P5) as the best-performing park (CC = 0.59) and Azadegan Park (P4) as the lowest-performing option (CC = 0.38). Sensitivity analysis revealed a highly stable ranking structure, with stability values exceeding 0.98 for all parks. Risk assessment results showed that Women's Park had the lowest risk level (R = 0.05), whereas Shadi Park (P3) exhibited the highest risk level (R = 0.95). After integrating the three components, IHSE-UI scores ranged from 0.019 to 0.558. Women's Park ranked first with an IHSE-UI value of 0.558, while Shadi Park became the lowest-ranked alternative due to its elevated infrastructure risk. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient between the Fuzzy TOPSIS and IHSE-UI rankings was (ρ=0.945), confirming strong consistency while demonstrating the model’s capability to incorporate risk and uncertainty into the final assessment. Furthermore, the increased discrimination among alternatives indicates that IHSE-UI provides greater decision resolution than conventional performance-based assessments.
Conclusion: The findings demonstrate that the actual HSE condition of urban parks is not solely determined by observed performance but emerges from the interaction among performance, infrastructure risk, and decision stability under uncertainty. The principal methodological contribution of this study is the transformation of sensitivity analysis outcomes into an operational stability component and its integration with performance and risk within a unified assessment framework. By moving beyond conventional performance-based evaluation, the proposed IHSE-UI framework provides a more comprehensive and decision-relevant basis for prioritizing interventions, allocating resources, and supporting risk-informed management of urban parks and other public urban infrastructures.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Health Safety and Environment (HSE)
Urban Parks
Uncertainty Modeling
Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM)
IHSE-UI
Aflaki Samani, E., Fanni, Z., & Jafarpour Ghalehteimouri, K. (2025). Integrating informal settlements into sustainable land use planning: A phased development framework for addressing spatial inequalities in Chabahar, Iran. City and Built Environment, 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44213-025-00061-8
Aleksic, A., Tadic, D., Komatina, N., & Nestic, S. (2025). Failure mode and effects analysis integrated with multi-attribute decision-making methods under uncertainty: A systematic literature review. Mathematics, 13(13), 2216. https://doi.org/10.3390/math13132216
Behzadian, M., Otaghsara, S. K., Yazdani, M., & Ignatius, J. (2012). A state-of-the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(17), 13051-13069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056
Carnevalli, J. A., & Miguel, P. A. C. (2008). Review, analysis and classification of the literature on QFD: Types of research, difficulties and benefits. International Journal of Production Economics, 114(2), 737–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.03.006
Chabahar Municipality. (2011). Comprehensive and detailed plan studies of Chabahar City (Unpublished technical report). Chabahar Municipality. (In Persian)
Chan, L. K., & Wu, M. L. (2002). Quality function deployment: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 143(3), 463–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00178-9
Chen, X., et al. (2025). A new approach for failure mode and effect analysis based on Fermatean fuzzy Z-number weighted Muirhead mean operator. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 143, 110080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2025.110080
Cinelli, M., Kadziński, M., Gonzalez, M., & Słowiński, R. (2020). How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy. Omega, 96, 102261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2020.102261
Daripour, M., Asgharizadeh, E., & Taghizadeh-Yazdi, M. (2026). ED-ELEC: A robust multi-criteria decision-making framework for evaluating sustainable urban delivery systems. Industrial Management Journal, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.22059/imj.2026.405611.1008271
Demir, G., Chatterjee, P., & Pamucar, D. (2024). Sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making: A state-of-the-art research perspective using bibliometric analysis. Expert Systems with Applications. 237, 121660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121660
Dinarvandi, M., Jafari, H. R., Salehi, E., Yavari, A. R., & Tassa, H. (2013). Health, safety, and environmental management in urban parks (Case study: District 6 of Tehran Municipality). Journal of Environmental Studies, 39(3), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.22059/jes.2013.35891 (In Persian)
Dobbie, M. J., & Dail, D. (2013). Robustness and sensitivity of weighting and aggregation in constructing composite indices. Ecological Indicators, 29, 270–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.12.025
Doloi, H. (2018). Risk-based resilience assessment model focusing on urban infrastructure system restoration. Procedia Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.144
Foroozesh, N., et al. (2021). Assessment of sustainable urban development based on a hybrid decision-making approach: Group fuzzy BWM, AHP, and TOPSIS–GIS. Sustainable Cities and Society. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103402
Ganjaeian, H., et al. (2025). Geospatial assessment of suitable areas for residential development along the Makran coastal strip, Southern Iran. Asian Journal of Geographical Research, 8(4), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.9734/AJGR/2025/v8i4333
Greco, S., Ehrgott, M., & Figueira, J. (Eds.). (2022). Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3094-4
Gunduz, M., Naji, K. K., & Eltagy, A. (2026). A risk-informed sustainability index for infrastructure drainage projects: A fuzzy decision-making framework. Sustainability, 18(7), 3311. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073311
González, T., Berger, P., Sánchez, C. N., & Mahichi, F. (2023). Sustainability of urban parks: Applicable methodological framework for a simple assessment. Sustainability, 15(21), 15262. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115262
Haag, A., & Chennu, N. S. (2023). Assessing whether decisions are more sensitive to preference or prediction uncertainty with a value of information approach. Omega, 121, 102936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2023.102936
Hou, Y., Zhang, X., et al. (2024). Application of a novel multi-criteria decision analysis approach for evaluating the sustainability of contaminated site management. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 104, 107327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107327
Hu, Q., Zhang, S., Hu, C., & Liu, Y. (2023). A new fuzzy multi-attribute group decision-making method based on TOPSIS and optimization models. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.15933
Kabisch, S., Korn, H., Stadler, J., & Bonn, A. (2017). Nature-based solutions to climate change adaptation in urban areas. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5_1
Khalilzadeh, M., Ghasemi, P., Afrasiabi, A., & Shakeri, H. (2021). Hybrid fuzzy MCDM and FMEA integrating with linear programming approach for the health and safety executive risks: A case study. Journal of Modelling in Management, 16(4), 1250–1278. https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-12-2019-0285
Kizielewicz, B., Shekhovtsov, A., Sałabun, W., & Wątróbski, J. (2023). Sensitivity analysis approaches in multi-criteria decision analysis: A systematic review. Applied Soft Computing, 146, 110662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110662
Khodadadi-Karimvand, M., & Shirouyehzad, H. (2021). Well drilling fuzzy risk assessment using fuzzy FMEA and fuzzy TOPSIS. Journal of Fuzzy Extension and Applications, 2(2), 144–155. https://doi.org/10.22105/JFEA.2021.275955.1086
Lotfi, S and Momenpour Akerdi, M (2024). The effect of Security on the willingness of women to usepublic spaces in the city (Case study: Behshahr City), Sustainable Development of Geographical Environment, 6(11), 59–78.  https://doi.org/10.48308/sdge.2025.236238.1201 (In Persian)
Lv, L., Li, H., Wang, L., Xia, Q., & Ji, L. (2019). Failure mode and effect analysis with extended MULTIMOORA method based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets: Application in operational risk evaluation for infrastructure. Information, 10(10), 313. https://doi.org/10.3390/info10100313
Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., Nor, K. M., Khalifah, Z., Zakwan, N., & Valipour, A. (2015). Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications – a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 28(1), 516–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139
Mishra, A. R., Rani, P., Cavallaro, F., Mardani, A., & Pamucar, D. (2023). Sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making: A state-of-the-art research perspective using bibliometric analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 232, 120858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120858
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) & Joint Research Centre (JRC). (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/533411815016
Paradowski, B., Celczynski, L., & Więckowski, J. (2025). Novel coefficients for improved robustness in multi-criteria decision analysis: Rank stability and equilibrium. Artificial Intelligence Review, 58, 94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-025-11307-6
Saltelli, A., Aleksankina, K., Becker, W., et al. (2019). Why so many published sensitivity analyses are false: A systematic review of sensitivity analysis practices. Environmental Modelling & Software, 114, 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.01.012
Santi, E., Ferreira, L., & Borenstein, D. (2017). Enhancing the discrimination of alternatives in fuzzy-TOPSIS. INFOR: Information Systems and Operational Research, 53 (4), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.3138/infor.53.4.155
Salvatore, A. L. (2023). The complexity of social phenomena and the construction of indicators. In Fuzzy logic and social sciences. 31–60. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41486-2_2  
Shao, J., Zhong, S., Tian, M., Liu, Y., et al. (2024). Combining fuzzy MCDM with Kano model and FMEA: A novel three-phase MCDM method for reliable assessment. Annals of Operations Research, 342, 725–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-024-05878-w
Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two things. The American Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 72–101. https://doi.org/10.2307/1412159
Stilic, A., & Puska, A. (2023). Integrating multi-criteria decision-making methods with sustainable engineering: A comprehensive review of current practices. Standards, 4(2), 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/eng4020088
Tronnebati, I., & El Boujidi, Z. (2024). Green supplier selection using fuzzy AHP, fuzzy TOPSIS, and fuzzy WASPAS: A case study in the automotive industry. Sustainability, 16(11), 4580. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114580
Vesković, S., Pamucar, D., Božanić, D., & Deveci, M. (2025). Failure mode and effects analysis integrated with multi-attribute decision-making methods under uncertainty: A systematic literature review. Mathematics, 13(13), 2216. https://doi.org/10.3390/math13132216
Więckowski, J., & Sałabun, W. (2023). Sensitivity analysis approaches in multi-criteria decision analysis: A systematic review. Applied Soft Computing, 148, 110915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110915
World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. (2023). Assessing the value of urban green and blue spaces for health and well-being. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/WHO-EURO-2023-7508-47275-69347
Xu, Z., Liu, Y., & Chen, H. (2023). Multi-criteria decision-making methods applied to achieve sustainable design: A systematic review. Proceedings of the Design Society, 3, 2289–2298. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2023.273 
Yang, Y., Wang, Z., & Lin, G. (2021). Performance assessment indicators for comparing recreational services of urban parks. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(7), 3337. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073337
Zhang, P., Zhang, Z., & Qing, D. (2024). An improved failure mode and effect analysis method for group decision-making in utility tunnels construction project risk evaluation. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 244, 109943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2024.109943
Zavadskas, E. K., Bausys, R., & Mazonaviciute, I. (2019). Safety evaluation methodology of urban public parks by multi-criteria decision making. Landscape and Urban Planning, 189, 372–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.05.014
Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Kildiene, S. (2014). State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(1), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.892037
فصلنامه علمی توسعه پایدار محیط جغرافیایی

مقالات آماده انتشار، اصلاح شده برای چاپ
انتشار آنلاین از 03 مهر 1405