Comprehensive Evaluation of University Safety Culture Construction Level Based on “2–4” Model

Based on the “2–4” model of accident causation, a comprehensive index system of the safety culture construction level in colleges and universities is set up. This system consists of 4 primary indicators and 28 secondary indicators. Taking a university as an example, applying the analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, this study establishes a comprehensive evaluation model to evaluate the construction level of the university’s safety culture. The results show that the construction level of the university’s safety culture is consistent with the actual situation. This study provides useful insights and feasible paths for promoting the safety and stability of colleges and universities and building a higher level of safety on campus.


Research on Evaluating the Level of Safety Culture Construction in Colleges and Universities
At present, the security and stability of colleges and universities are facing unprecedented challenges. Appalling accidents such as network fraud, poisoning, suicide, and murder have occurred frequently on college campuses, sounding an alarm about the security situation in educational institutions [1,2]. From the "2-4" model of accident causation proposed by Fu Gui [3], we can see that the root cause of accidents is the lack of safety culture. Several domestic scholars have conducted relevant theoretical studies on the construction of safety culture in colleges and universities from different perspectives, but no systematic index evaluation system has been constructed. The lack of such a system hinders the ability of colleges and universities to evaluate their current construction level of safety culture. Therefore, constructing a reasonable index system applicable to the level of safety culture construction in these institutions is significant to ensure safe and harmonious campuses.
Thus far, most scholars have used qualitative methods to evaluate the safety culture, and there is a lack of attention to the influence relationship between indicators, resulting in poor objectivity of the results. As quantitative research methods, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method are mainly used to study marine transportation, electric power, and other enterprises. To comprehensively and systematically evaluate the construction level of the security culture in colleges and universities, we applied the AHP and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method [4] to construct the evaluation model of the security culture in this university, and the affiliation theory of fuzzy mathematics was used to transform the qualitative study of the security culture into a quantitative assessment. This study has practical significance for improving the safety and security work in colleges and universities.

Definition of Safety Culture in Colleges and Universities
Since 1986, when the concept of "safety culture" was first proposed by INSAG [5], scholars have studied it from different perspectives. In a broad sense, safety culture includes "internalized" humanistic qualities, such as safety philosophy, safety awareness, safety values, and "externalized" humanistic expressions and carriers, such as safety management systems, behavior culture, behavior habits, standards, and others [6,7]. Safety culture, in a narrow sense, refers to the comprehensive product of individual and collective values, attitudes, abilities, and behaviors, which mainly consists of a deep-level safety concept culture, middle-level safety system culture, and surface-level safety behavior culture and safety material culture [8,9]. Safety culture, in general, informs the safety culture in colleges and universities and can be a guiding principle to promote the construction of safety and stability in campuses. By reviewing the literature, we find that most scholars conduct research based on safety culture in a broad sense and propose a safety culture construction program with safety management, safety education, or material construction as the bias. Although this construction program has a certain role in promoting the development of the safety culture in universities, problems occur such as lack of a theoretical basis, a weak sense of boundary, the duplication of construction contents, and the absence of a strict hierarchical relationship of construction contents [7].
To sum up, safety culture in colleges and universities is the sum of the safety values, system, behavior, and safety objects that are gradually formed and inherited and constantly innovated by teachers and students in scientific research, teaching, and education activities, with the purpose of ensuring the physical and mental health of teachers and students. Safety culture consists of ideological, institutional, behavioral, material culture, and other aspects.

"2-4" Model of Accident Causation
Since the development of accident-causing models, more than 10 accident-causing models have been commonly used, such as the domino and trajectory crossover models. The findings of Professor Fu Gui showed that the "2-4" model can describe the occurrence of accidents in a network system and carry out a large number of accident statistical analysis [10].
The "2-4" model of accident causation is proposed by Professor Fu Gui on the basis of the domino and Swiss cheese models, which show good application effects in tracing the cause of accidents and developing countermeasures for accident prevention [11][12][13]. The "2-4" model of accident causation suggests that the causes of accidents can be divided into two levels and four stages. The "2" refers to the causes of accidents as organizational behavior and individual member behavior, and the "4" refers to the safety culture (root cause), safety management system (underlying cause), habitual behavior (indirect cause), and one-time behavior (direct cause). These four stages constitute the behavioral chain of accident causation, as shown in Table 1. By applying the "2-4" model, we can see that the root cause of accidents is the lack of safety culture, i.e., the deep safety concept culture plays a decisive role in the occurrence of accidents and is the guiding ideology for creating a safe campus. The safety management system, habitual behaviors, and one-time behaviors are all representations of safety culture. In other words, the deeper the teachers and students know the safety concept of the university, the better the implementation of the safety management system will be. Unsafe human behavior and the unsafe conditions of objects show a trend of reduction, thus reducing the occurrence of accidents and helping create a good situation of safety and stability.

Comprehensive Evaluation of the Level of Safety Culture Construction
By evaluating the effectiveness of the safety culture construction in colleges and universities, we can solve problems in the construction of safety culture. The ultimate goal is to achieve safety for all. To measure the level of college safety culture construction, we should start from the concept of college safety culture and consider its aspects such as the system, behavior, and material cultures based on the "2-4" model of accident causation. In addition, we need to reflect on the characteristics of the safety culture construction and pay attention to the situation of the safety characteristic culture construction of each unit within each university. Therefore, the construction effect of safety culture can be reflected from six aspects: the safety concept culture, safety system construction, safety behavior construction, safety material construction, safety characteristic culture construction, and safety performance base level of universities. Accordingly, when evaluating the level of the safety culture construction in colleges and universities, only by thoroughly measuring the safety culture construction itself and its effect, and covering all of these six aspects, can the true level of the safety culture construction be derived comprehensively and accurately.

Construction of Evaluation Index System for the Level of Safety Culture Construction in Colleges and Universities
Through the literature, we found that the safety culture evaluation index system with coal mine, petroleum, and electric power enterprises as the main research objects is more complete [14][15][16]. Colleges and universities cannot copy the theory of enterprise safety construction but need to create a theoretical system of safety culture construction using their own special characteristics as determined by the special campus environment, organization system, and social status of the colleges and universities.
Based on the definition of safety culture discussed, combined with the "2-4" model of accident causation, the evaluation index system A of the safety culture construction level in universities is constructed (the whole index system is called "A", and the following level index is called "B"). The evaluation index system A includes six aspects: the safety concept culture, safety system culture, safety behavior culture, safety material culture, safety characteristic culture, and safety performance level.
To reflect the secondary indexes of safety culture in the most comprehensive and effective way, we have reviewed numerous papers on researching the index system of safety culture, combined with relevant laws and regulations, and the special characteristics of universities themselves. We have also combined statistics on safety culture factors to construct the secondary indexes of the evaluation of safety culture construction in universities [17].
In summary, the evaluation index system of the safety culture construction level of colleges and universities includes 7 primary evaluation indexes and 28 secondary evaluation indexes. The evaluation index system of the level of safety culture construction in colleges and universities is shown in Appendix A.
According to the preceding analysis, the index system of the safety culture construction level of colleges and universities, which is constructed based on the theoretical basis of the "2-4" model of accident causation, has a close logical relationship among the indexes and a clear sense of hierarchy. No problem of repetition and crossover of contents occurs, so the index system can be used to evaluate the safety culture construction level of colleges and universities in a comprehensive and systematic way.

Fuzzy Evaluation of Level of Safety Culture Construction in Colleges and Universities
Three methods are used in determining the weight of evaluation indexes: qualitative, quantitative, and a combination of both methods [18]. Qualitative evaluation focuses on the "quality" factor in the construction of safety culture and reflects the humanistic thought in the evaluation. It is a kind of developmental evaluation, but its result is easily affected by the subjective factors of the evaluation subject. Quantitative evaluation emphasizes mathematical calculation and is more objective and standardized. However, due to the limitation of quantifiable factors, fully reflecting the status of safety culture construction is a difficult task.
This study employs AHP, a multi-objective decision-making method that combines qualitative and quantitative features to hierarchize the complex college safety culture construction decision-making system and ensure that weights are determined in a relatively objective, fair, and scientific manner. Therefore, AHP is used to determine the weights of the evaluation indicators.
The fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method [19] involves applying the fuzzy transformation principle and the basic theory of fuzzy mathematics-affiliation degree or affiliation function to describe the amount of fuzzy information of the mediated transition on the basis of the comprehensive consideration of all factors related to the evaluated objects and convert the expert qualitative evaluation into a quantitative score. The advantage of this method is that it avoids the problem of difficulty in quantifying the value of the safety culture construction indexes in colleges and universities because of the difference in human subjective judgment. Furthermore, using this method to assess the level of safety culture construction in colleges and universities is both scientific and feasible.
Taking a university as an example, we used the AHP and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method to comprehensively evaluate the current situation of the safety culture in this university.

Construction of Evaluation Factor Sets
According to the evaluation index system of the university safety culture construction level shown in Table 2, the evaluation factor sets of levels 1 and 2 are constructed.

Creating a Fuzzy Rubric Set
Combined with the actual situation of the safety culture construction in universities, this study divides the fuzzy rubric set into five levels: V = {V1, V2, V3, V4, V5}{very good, better, average, poor, very poor}.

Determining the Weights of Evaluation Indexes for the Level of Safety Culture Construction in Universities
Using AHP to determine the weights of evaluation indicators is usually determined according to the following steps: (1) Determining the judgment matrix. The judgment matrix represents the relative importance of the indicators related to a certain indicator in the previous level. According to the comparison scale table determined by Saaty, experts assign weights to the indicators at each level, then compare the indicators of each indicator layer pair by pair and finally, construct a judgment matrix.
(2) Characteristic root method of hierarchical single sorting. Hierarchical single sorting can be reduced to the problem of computing the maximum eigenroots and eigenvectors of the judgment matrix. The maximum eigenvalue is: (3) Consistency test of judgment matrix For the consistency test of the nth-order judgment matrix, the consistency index is defined as: Taking the first-level indicators as an example, we can construct the judgment matrix A of the first-level indicators according to the above steps as follows: According to the preceding steps, the feature vectors of the evaluation indexes of the safety culture construction level of universities can be calculated and is summarized in Table 2.
Through calculation, we can see in Table 3 that the consistency ratio of each safety culture construction level evaluation index is less than 0.1. Thus, each judgment matrix shows satisfactory consistency.

Judgment of Secondary Indicators and Determination of Indicator Affiliation
Suppose that x experts have judged a certain indicator, and y of them have chosen a certain rubric level. Then, the affiliation of the indicator to the set of rubrics is y/x [20,21].
Ten experts were invited to judge each secondary indicator according to the five evaluation criteria given in the rubric set. Then, the affiliation degree of the secondary indicators under each primary indicator was calculated to construct the judgment matrix, and the judgment matrix, corresponding to each primary indicator, was as follows:

Fuzzy Integrated Evaluation of First-Level Indicators
Based on the single-factor evaluation matrix of the second-level indicators and their corresponding weights, the fuzzy synthesis of each level of indicators is as follows: According to the principle of maximum affiliation, the evaluation level of the university's safety culture construction is very good.
Through actual investigation, we find that the level of the safety culture of this university is typical of exemplary universities. The safety concept of the university can be fully understood by teachers and students, and it has a rich cultural carrier. The safety system is perfect, and it can organize and carry out various forms of educational activities with a high participation rate. The annual featured activities are also the learning objects of other universities, the corresponding equipment and facilities adopt relatively advanced technology, and the accident rate is low. Accordingly, the evaluation grade of the level of the safety culture construction in this university obtained by applying fuzzy comprehensive evaluation matches the actual situation.

Conclusions
(1) The concept of safety culture has two types: broad and narrow. By combining the literature for comparison and analysis, we can see that the concept of safety culture in the narrow sense is more suitable for the actual situation of China's colleges and universities at present; that is, the safety culture of these institutions is composed of conceptual, institutional, behavioral, and material culture. Among them, concept culture is the core, system culture is the guarantee, behavior culture is the representation, and material culture is the cornerstone. (2) Based on the theoretical basis of the "2-4" model of accident causation, the evaluation index system A of the safety culture in universities is constructed. The index system consists of 7 primary indicators and 28 secondary indicators, of which the primary indicators include the safety concept culture B 1 , safety system culture B 2 , safety behavior culture B 3 , safety material culture B 4 , safety characteristic culture B 5 , quality of accident statistics work B 6 , and basic safety performance B 7 . (3) Taking a university as an example and using AHP and the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, we established a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model of the safety culture construction level of the university. We quantitatively evaluated the construction level of the safety culture of the university with the help of the affiliation theory of fuzzy mathematics. The evaluation results matched the actual situation after calculation and analysis, with strong reliability. The model is a reasonable and feasible evaluation method that is useful for other universities to evaluate the level of safety culture construction. Informed Consent Statement: I choose to exclude this statement because the study did not involve humans.

Data Availability Statement:
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments:
The authors are grateful to the Web of Science for supporting the literature search. We also thank Fu Gui for inventing the "2-4" model, the higher schools for providing the research site support, and our friends for caring for us during the writing of this thesis.

Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A Table A1. Meaning and explanation of evaluation indicators of the safety culture construction level in colleges and universities.

Secondary Evaluation Indexes Description of Indicators
Safety concept culture B 1 Adequacy of safety concept B 11 The safety concept system is perfect. The content of the safety concept, safety mission, and safety target are easy to understand and fit the actual situation of universities.
Level of understanding and acceptance of safety concept B 12 The concept of safety is widely disseminated. All students and teachers are involved in learning and promoting the concept of safety and can understand and agree with it.
Construction of safety culture carrier B 13 Traditional carriers: contents of the bulletin board, large screen on campus, and dormitory windows are changed at least once a month. Non-traditional carriers: microblogs, WeChat official accounts, TikTok, and others. Activity carrier: traditional and emerging media and other sources such as videos, poster collections, safety hazard inspection volunteer activities, and knowledge competitions.
Safety system culture B 2 Integrated security management system B 21 Includes production safety management objectives, targets, and general principles; production safety responsibility system; safety facilities and cost management system; major hazard source management system; fire safety management system; hidden danger investigation and management system; traffic safety management system; disaster prevention and mitigation management system; accident investigation and report handling system; emergency management system and other systems.
Personnel security management responsibility system B 22 Including safety education and training system; labor protective equipment issuance and use and management system; safety apparatus use management system; special operations and special hazardous operations management system, and others.
Equipment and facilities safety management system B 23 Including "three simultaneous" systems, regular inspection system, regular maintenance and repair system, regular monitoring, inspection system, and others.

Environmental safety management system B 24
Including safety signs management system, operating environment management system, and occupational health management system. The campus has sufficient firefighting materials, intact and normal facilities, stable systems, and scientific and effective safety evacuation channels.
Safe and orderly traffic system B 43 The traffic road system inside and outside the campus is complete, safe, and orderly.
Safe and reliable equipment for teaching activities B 44 The performance of teaching laboratory equipment and facilities is stable, and the quality is up to standard.
Canteen health and safety hygiene B 45 The dormitory and canteen are well-sanitized, and the fire prevention and anti-theft system is effective and complete.
Adequate emergency relief supplies B 46 The rescue materials used for the accident are adequate and effective.
Harmonious environment inside and outside the campus B 47 The on-campus environment is orderly and comfortable to work in, with good interpersonal relations and good security in the surrounding area. Finding out whether the concept culture construction is systematic with the actual situation of each university.
Institutional culture focusing on uniqueness B 52 Finding out whether the institutional culture construction has its own uniqueness in conjunction with the actual situation of each university.
Behavior culture focusing on self-discipline B 53 Finding out whether the construction of behavior culture is self-disciplined in relation to the actual situation of each university.

Material culture focusing on integration B 54
Finding out whether the material culture construction is integrated with the actual situation of each university.
Quality of accident statistics B 6 Completeness of accident statistics coverage B 61 In addition to counting casualty accidents, they also count various types of non-casualty accidents such as attempted accidents.

Accuracy of accident statistics B 62
Statistics can truthfully and objectively reflect the status of various types of accidents in the organization so that there are no omissions or falsifications.

Usefulness of statistical results B 63
The accident statistical analysis report can accurately predict the current situation of college safety, and according to the statistical results, they can get the pattern of college accidents and propose prevention suggestions. Injury rate per million man-hours: this indicates the number of injuries per million man-hours (credit hours) of accidents in a given period. The number of injuries is the sum of the number of minor injuries, serious injuries, and fatalities. Injury rate per million man-hours = (Number of casualties/Actual total working hours) × 1,000,000 PS: Calculation of actual total work hours (credit hours): Actual total working hours = Average number of students and faculty entering the university during the statistical period × Actual number of days worked in the period × 8 Injury severity rate per million-man hours B 72 Injury severity rate per million man-hours = (Total lost working days/Actual total working hours) × 1,000,000