A system dynamics model based on ISM for risk perception in emergency by employees in chemical industrial parks.
Interpretive Structural Modeling
chemical industry
influencing factor
risk perception simulation
system dynamics
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 10 2024
28 10 2024
Historique:
received:
27
02
2024
accepted:
22
10
2024
medline:
29
10
2024
pubmed:
29
10
2024
entrez:
29
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Risk perception is one of the factors that guide human behavior in the workplace. In accident prevention and emergency response, the risk perception of employees affects the safety behaviour and efficiency of emergency disposal. Besides, risk perception is a complicated process restricted by many influencing factors. The study aims to identify the most important factors affecting risk perception. This study had three phases. In the first, factors affecting the risk perception were extracted based on the questionnaire survey and the expert scoring. Then, the Interpretive Structure Model (ISM) was used to stratify the 14 influencing factors of risk perception and obtain a hierarchical structure chart. Finally, by analyzing the influence paths in the ISM, the system dynamics feedback loop diagram was constructed. The model took the state variable "risk perception→ risk response→ risk identification→ risk communication→ risk perception" as the main circular loop, and was supplemented and perfected by multiple feeder loop circuits. Research indicates risk experience is the most fundamental factor affecting risk perception. In the aspect of sensitivity analysis, the study shows that the risk perception of employees is related to the distance of the risk source. Its effectiveness in quantifying qualitative data, identifying influential factors, and establishing cause-effect relationships make it a valuable tool for enhancing risk perception in chemical industry park.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39468320
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-77445-z
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-77445-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
25767Subventions
Organisme : The National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 71971110
Organisme : 2023 Key Research Plan(Social development)in Jiangsu Province
ID : BE2023809
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Chen, C. & Reniers, G. Chemical industry in China: The current status, safety problems, and pathways for future sustainable development. Saf. Sci. 128, 104741 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104741
Huang, W. Using an expanded safety failure event network to analyze railway dangerous goods transportation system risk-accident. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104122 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104122
Zhang, M., Wang, X., Mannan, M. S., Qian, C. & Wang, J. A system dynamics model for risk perception of lay people in communication regarding risk of chemical incident. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 50, 101–111 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2017.09.005
He, Z. & Weng, W. A dynamic and simulation-based method for quantitative risk assessment of the domino accident in chemical industry. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 144, 79–92 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2020.07.014
Koyuncugil, A. S. Financial early warning system model and data mining application for risk detection. Expert Syst. Appl. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.12.021 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.12.021
Zhang, R. et al. Using risk data as a source for human reliability assessment during shipping LNG offloading work. Ocean Eng. 307, 118159 (2024).
doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2024.118159
Zhang, R., Tan, H. & Afzal, W. A modified human reliability analysis method for the estimation of human error probability in the offloading operations at oil terminals. https://doi.org/10.1002/prs.12223
Slovic, P., Layman, M. & Flynn, J. H. Risk perception, trust, and nuclear waste: Lessons from yucca mountain. Environment 33, 6–30 (1991).
Sullivan-Wiley, K. A. & Short Gianotti, A. G. Risk perception in a multi-hazard environment. World Dev. 97, 138–152 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.04.002
Zhao, M., Rosoff, H. & John, R. S. Media disaster reporting effects on public risk perception and response to escalating tornado warnings: A natural experiment. Risk Anal. 39, 535–552 (2019).
doi: 10.1111/risa.13205
pubmed: 30290397
Pandit, B., Albert, A., Patil, Y. & Al-Bayati, A. J. Impact of safety climate on hazard recognition and safety risk perception. Saf. Sci. 113, 44–53 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.11.020
Park, S. et al. Exploring inattentional blindness in failure of safety risk perception: Focusing on safety knowledge in construction industry. Saf. Sci. 145, 105518 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105518
Perlman, A., Sacks, R. & Barak, R. Hazard recognition and risk perception in construction. Saf. Sci. 64, 22–31 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.11.019
Kumar, R. & Goel, P. Exploring the domain of interpretive structural modelling (ISM) for sustainable future panorama: A bibliometric and content analysis. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 29, 2781–2810 (2022).
doi: 10.1007/s11831-021-09675-7
Katiyar, R., Panigrahi, S. S., Ghatak, R. R. & Singh, R. Exploring barriers towards effective coal supply-A non-core perspective using ISM-DEMATEL. Resour. Policy 92, 105010 (2024).
doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.105010
Agrawal, P. & Narain, R. Analysis of enablers for the digitalization of supply chain using an interpretive structural modelling approach. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manage. 72, 410–439 (2023).
doi: 10.1108/IJPPM-09-2020-0481
Bao, K., He, G., Ruan, J., Zhu, Y. & Hou, X. Analysis on the resource and environmental carrying capacity of coal city based on improved system dynamics model: A case study of Huainan, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut Res. 30, 36728–36743 (2022).
doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-24715-w
Sjaifuddin, S. Environmental management of industrial estate based on eco-industrial parks: A system dynamics modeling. Industrial Eng. 19, (2020).
Warfield, J. N. On arranging elements of a hierarchy in graphic form. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. SMC-3, 121–132 (1973).
doi: 10.1109/TSMC.1973.5408493
Sushil. How to check correctness of total interpretive structural models? Ann. Oper. Res. 270, 473–487 (2018).
doi: 10.1007/s10479-016-2312-3
Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K., NoorulHaq, A. & Geng, Y. An ISM approach for the barrier analysis in implementing green supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 283–297 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.042
Forrester, J. W. System dynamics, systems thinking, and soft OR. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 10, 245–256 (1994).
doi: 10.1002/sdr.4260100211
García, J. M. Theory and Practical Exercises of System Dynamics: Modeling and Simulation with Vensim PLE. Preface John Sterman (Juan Martin Garcia, 2023).
Wang, Y. et al. Modelling and evaluating the economy-resource-ecological environment system of a third-polar city using system dynamics and ranked weights-based coupling coordination degree model. Cities 133, 104151 (2023).
doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2022.104151
Zhang, M., Wang, X., Mannan, M. S., Qian, C. & Wang, J. Y. System dynamical simulation of risk perception for enterprise decision-maker in communication of chemical incident risks. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 46, 115–125 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2017.01.019
Bouloiz, H., Garbolino, E., Tkiouat, M. & Guarnieri, F. A system dynamics model for behavioral analysis of safety conditions in a chemical storage unit. Saf. Sci. 58, 32–40 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.02.013
Xu, Y., Zhao, G., Zhang, B. & Jiao, J. SD simulation research on the green low-carbon development of coal enterprises. Complexity (2021).
Zhu, C. Simulating the interrelationships among population, water, ecology, and economy in urban agglomerations based on a system dynamics approach. J. Clean. Prod. (2024).
Chen, G., Huang, K., Zou, M., Yang, Y. & Dong, H. A methodology for quantitative vulnerability assessment of coupled multi-hazard in chemical industrial park. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 58, 30–41 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2019.01.008
Xu, S., Wang, J., Li, J., Wang, Y. & Wang, Z. System dynamics research of non-adaptive evacuation psychology in toxic gas leakage emergencies of chemical park. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 72, 104556 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2021.104556
Feng, J. R., Gai, W. & Yan, Y. Emergency evacuation risk assessment and mitigation strategy for a toxic gas leak in an underground space: The case of a subway station in guangzhou, China. Saf. Sci. 134, 105039 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105039
Lu, C. S. & Tsai, C. L. The effect of safety climate on seafarers’ safety behaviors in container shipping. Accid. Anal. Prev. 42, 1999–2006 (2010).
doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.06.008
pubmed: 20728654
Huang, K., Chen, G., Khan, F. & Yang, Y. Dynamic analysis for fire-induced domino effects in chemical process industries. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 148, 686–697 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2021.01.042
Zhang, M. & Fang, D. A cognitive analysis of why Chinese scaffolders do not use safety harnesses in construction. Constr. Manage. Econ. 31, 207–222 (2013).
doi: 10.1080/01446193.2013.764000
Thomas, M., Klemm, C., Hutchins, B. & Kaufman, S. Emergency risk communication and sensemaking during smoke events: A survey of practitioners. Risk Anal. 43, 358–371 (2023).
doi: 10.1111/risa.13903
pubmed: 35191053
Liu, L., Zou, Z. & Greene, R. L. The effects of type and form of collaborative robots in manufacturing on trustworthiness, risk perceived, and acceptance. Int. J. Hum.–Comput. Interact. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2169527 (2023).
Afzal, F., Shehzad, A., Rehman, H. M., Afzal, F. & Mukit, M. M. H. Risk perception and cost of capital in emerging market projects using dynamic conditional correlation model. Int. J. Islamic Middle East. Finance Manage. 16, 253–273 (2023).
Golshani, N., Shabanpour, R., Mohammadian, A., Auld, J. & Ley, H. Evacuation decision behavior for no-notice emergency events. Transp. Res. Part. D: Transp. Environ. 77, 364–377 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2019.01.025