# Analytical Hierarchy Process for Construction Safety Management and Resource Allocation
## 3 Research Methodology  
Investing in safety management typically reduces the probability of accidents and minimizes financial losses post-accident. While direct costs of accidents, such as medical care, compensation for injuries, and damage to buildings or machinery, are the main financial losses, indirect costs, including time dedicated to accident investigation, legal expenses, loss of clients, damage to the firm's reputation and closure of the construction site, can be even more substantial. Finding the optimal investment level for each construction project ensures that safety investments are financially viable without compromising safety standards. Striking this balance helps mitigate accidents while controlling overall safety expenses. The proposed framework (Figure 2) suggests using the AHP to select the best safety resource allocation that allows mitigation of the risks identified in the project using advanced technological solutions. This is achieved based on priority setting by the contractor, regarding safety risk and safety cost. The research methodology commences with an analysis of the fundamental risk factors contributing to fatal accidents at construction sites. Unlike similar research studies that analyze root factors of construction accidents [54; 55; 56], the proposed root cause analysis is carried out based on the 5M method (man, medium, mission, machinery, and management) and is further deepened by categorizing these factors according to various project phases, encompassing earthworks, structural works, finishing works, and site layout organization (Figure 3). The proposed model is designed to gain insights into the occurrence of fatal accidents across different project stages to enhance risk management practices. In response to the imperative to reduce the frequency and severity of construction-related accidents, the recommended approach involves implementing risk mitigation measures. Risk mitigation activities can be implemented according to the safety budget allocated in the project. This study examines the following three alternatives for safety resource allocation:  
* The first alternative (A) suggests optimizing the safety budget to an optimal ratio of 1% of the project scope, as advocated by [PERSON] et al. [34]. It should be emphasized that this ratio is suitable for large construction projects and that in other types of projects (e.g., Small and Medium Enterprises' (SMEs) projects), the optimal ratio may be up to four times higher (3.8%) [7]. * The second alternative (B) suggests allocating a modest safety budget of 0.5% and using technological mitigation activities to enhance project safety with the extra 0.5%, eventually allowing an exception of d% from the optimal safety budget of 1% suggested in A. That means a total safety budget of (1 + d)%. Figure 2: The research framework. * The third alternative (C) suggests allocating a modest safety budget of 0.5% and sticking to it without any additional safety resource allocation. Additionally, the research estimates the costs of mitigation activities in two project phases: the structural and finishing phases. It underscores the importance of utilizing advanced technological solutions such as simulations, drones, body cameras, crane-installed cameras, and sunscreen shedding and fall-avoidance nets to enhance safety risk mitigation measures (Figure 4). A wide variety of advanced mitigation solutions are discussed in the literature. As falls from heights are frequent work accidents that cause injuries and deaths on construction sites, [PERSON] et al. [57] evaluated recent safety technologies for controlling the risk of falls from heights, especially in urban building projects. Advanced technologies were identified as contributing to predicting, preventing, and mitigating risks of falls from heights. These include safety risk assessment, real-time monitoring, automated prevention, ontology modeling, virtual reality training, personal fall arrest systems, and collective fall protection systems. [PERSON] et al.