A dynamic interaction assessment method for disaster management based on extended DEMATEL

Figures (5) Tables (4)

Figure 1.
Flowchart of the suggested method.
Figure 2.
Causal diagrams of factors of emergency scenarios $ {{\hat e}}_1^{{{{t}}_1}} $ and $ {{\hat e}}_2^{{{{t}}_1}} $. (a) for $ {{\hat e}}_1^{{{{t}}_1}} $; (b) for $ {{\hat e}}_2^{{{{t}}_1}} $.
Figure 3.
Evolutions of simulation performance or state values of factors of emergency scenarios $ {{\hat e}}_1^{{{{t}}_1}} $ and $ {{\hat e}}_2^{{{{t}}_1}} $. (a) for $ {{\hat e}}_1^{{{{t}}_1}} $; (b) for $ {{\hat e}}_2^{{{{t}}_1}} $.
Figure 4.
Causal diagrams of factors of emergency scenarios $ {{\hat e}}_1^{{{{t}}_2}} $, $ {{\hat e}}_2^{{{{t}}_2}} $ and $ {{\hat e}}_3^{{{{t}}_2}} $. (a) for $ {{\hat e}}_1^{{{{t}}_2}} $; (b) for $ {{\hat e}}_2^{{{{t}}_2}} $; (c) for $ {{\hat e}}_3^{{{{t}}_2}} $.
Figure 5.
Evolutions of simulation performance or state values of factors of emergency scenarios $ {{\hat e}}_1^{{{{t}}_2}} $, $ {{\hat e}}_2^{{{{t}}_2}} $ and $ {{\hat e}}_3^{{{{t}}_2}} $. (a) for $ {{\hat e}}_1^{{{{t}}_2}} $; (b) for $ {{\hat e}}_2^{{{{t}}_2}} $; (c) for $ {{\hat e}}_3^{{{{t}}_2}} $.

Factor	Description
F₁ (C)	Typhoon Mujigae with estimated maximum sustained winds of 175 km/h near its centre at its peak intensity
F₂ (C)	Checking ladder of tank destroyed and a leaking hole with a diameter of about 60 mm at the top of the tank
F₃ (C)	Liquefied petroleum gas leakage with pressure of about 0.6 MPa
F₄ (C)	Roads blocked by fallen trees, billboards and overturned cars etc.
F₅ (C)	Hazardous chemicals nearby may be ignited if the leaking tank explodes
F₆ (C)	Rescue workers and the surrounding people threatened by the explosion risk
F₇ (B)	Releasing gas pressure with the leaking hole without human intervention
F₈ (B)	Diluting the leakage gas by virtue of natural conditions such as wind and rain
F₉ (B)	Disaster relief teams travelling and rescuing
F₁₀ (B)	Evacuate the masses and set up security cordons
F₁₁ (B)	Clearing roadblocks and evacuating traffic
F₁₂ (B)	Diluting the air in the leaking area using fire fighting hoses
F₁₃ (B)	Plugging the leaking hole with cork
F₁₄ (B)	Transferring the remaining liquefied petroleum gas to a safety zone from the tank

Table 1.

Influential factors of emergency scenarios at time point $ {{{t}}_1} $ and $ {{{t}}_2} $.

Table 2.

Collective BTLDRM $ {A_{{t_1}}} $ and assessments $ {{{R}}_{{t_1}}} $ at $ {{{t}}_1} $.

Table 3.

Collective BTLDRM $ {A_{{t_2}}} $ at $ {{{t}}_2} $.

Time point	Emergency scenario	Factor weight	Cause-effect classification		Overall performance value
Time point	Emergency scenario	Factor weight	Cause factor	Effect factor	Overall performance value
$ {{{t}}_1} $	$ {{\hat e}}_1^{{{{t}}_1}} $	F₁:0.126; F₂:0.057; F₃:0.114; F₄:0.081; F₅:0.083; F₆:0.102; F₇:0.048; F₈:0.101; F₉:0.192; F₁₀:0.097	F₁; F₂; F₃	F₄; F₅; F₆; F₇; F₈; F₉; F₁₀	0.389
$ {{{t}}_1} $	$ {{\hat e}}_2^{{{{t}}_1}} $	F₁:0.134; F₂:0.046; F₃:0.096; F₄:0.070; F₅:0.071; F₆:0.100; F₇:0.049; F₈:0.089; F₉:0.185; F₁₀:0.089; F₁₁:0.074	F₁; F₂; F₃; F₁₁	F₄; F₅; F₆; F₇; F₈; F₉; F₁₀	0.640
$ {{{t}}_2} $	$ {{\hat e}}_1^{{{{t}}_2}} $	F₁:0.013; F₂:0.072; F₃:0.138; F₅:0.115; F₆:0.085; F₇:0.109; F₉:0.165; F₁₂:0.088; F₁₃:0.138; F₁₄:0.077	F₁; F₂; F₇; F₉; F₁₂; F₁₃	F₃; F₅; F₆; F₁₄	0.663
	$ {{\hat e}}_2^{{{{t}}_2}} $	F₁:0.014; F₂:0.072; F₃:0.141; F₅:0.119; F₆:0.088; F₇:0.084; F₉:0.171; F₁₂:0.093; F₁₃:0.140; F₁₄:0.079	F₁; F₂; F₇; F₉; F₁₂; F₁₃	F₃; F₅; F₆; F₁₄	0.348
	$ {{\hat e}}_3^{{{{t}}_2}} $	F₁:0.014; F₂:0.072; F₃:0.141; F₅:0.118; F₆:0.087; F₇:0.085; F₉:0.173; F₁₂:0.091; F₁₃:0.139; F₁₄:0.080	F₁; F₂; F₇; F₉; F₁₂; F₁₃	F₃; F₅; F₆; F₁₄	0.410

Table 4.

Results obtained by the DEMATEL method.