# Analytical Hierarchy Process for Construction Safety Management and Resource Allocation
## 2 Background
### The AHP Model  
The AHP method was originally developed by [PERSON], in the 1970s [27], and ref. [36] has been widely used for decision-making across various industries such as automotive, chemistry, energy, machinery, and medicine. This method is suitable for determining priorities, allocating funds based on performance indicators, designing systems, ensuring system stability, and optimization purposes. The AHP is a multi-criteria decision-making tool that quantifies and prioritizes criteria and sub-criteria through pairwise comparisons using proportional scales [37]. A review of the application of AHP in construction was presented by [PERSON] et al. [38]. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [39] identified five key application areas of AHP in operational research: operational strategy, process optimization, product design, resource planning, project management, and supply chain management. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [40] utilized AHP to enhance decision-making for outsourcing information systems, evaluating criteria like cost, resources, strategy, risk, management, and quality. Their study primarily contributed to a decision-making framework for selecting service providers and determining criteria weights. In construction, [PERSON] and [PERSON] [41] highlighted that using AHP in a tower crane case study can lead to more effective technical and economic evaluations in decision-making. As in construction projects, various risks can impact cost, schedule, and quality, and the AHP helped identify and prioritize high-impact risks [42]. The study pinpointed the lack of clear delegation of professional responsibilities as the most critical risk factor. Therefore, effective risk management strategies should target this specific risk to prevent adverse effects on project performance. A recent study [43] has applied the AHP to prioritize criteria for material selection for prefabricated wooden buildings in Canada and the United States. It revealed that the safety and security of building occupants, location, shape, and height of the building; comfort, satisfaction, and well-being of the building; occupant health; and material availability were the top five sub-criteria for structural materials. Another study [44] has focused on enhancing civil aviation safety by reducing human error incidents. [PERSON] et al. [45] introduced a safety risk assessment framework that prioritizes safety risks, aiding in budgeting and goal setting without compromising safety. Their framework serves as a decision-making tool for stakeholders, helping them determine accident and injury prevention investments within the funding limits. Considering the high accident rate in China, [PERSON] et al. [16] developed a new quantitative analysis strategy using a BN and AHP solution. Their approach calculates the contribution rate of every risk factor to specific accidents and generates a loss index for various construction site incidents. It helps clarify the safety situation and analyze risk priority based on the dynamic condition. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [46] developed a decision-making model for efficient risk management approaches in modular construction projects. The Delphi method and the AHP were used to rank and quantify risks and approaches. Critical risk categories and top-rated risk management approaches were identified. As improving safety communication in the construction industry is essential for reducing workplace injuries, [PERSON] et al. [47] investigated the factors that positively impact safety communication, particularly among foreign construction field workers. They proposed a quantitative assessment through AHP to highlight the significant influence of extrinsic motivation, management communication style, and visible safety information on communication effectiveness. They also recommend including foreign construction field workers in future research to enhance the diversity of perspectives and experiences. [PERSON] et al. [48] proposed a research study to fill a gap in current guidelines by examining the risks of nuclear decommissioning.