基于Choquet模糊积分的煤矿安全投入经济效益评价

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.02.0577

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为提高煤矿企业的经济效益,合理安排各项安全投入,构建一种解决指标间相关性的模型。首先,剖析基于安全投入的经济效益的影响因素,在此基础上构建一套较为科学合理的结构指标体系;其次,利用熵权法确定各个指标的权重;然后,针对指标之间存在的相关性,基于安全投入结构,引入熵权-基于2-可加模糊测度的Choquet模糊积分模型,计算经济效益评价值;最后,选取某煤矿进行实证分析,验证所构建模型的可行性和有效性。结果表明:所构建的模型比逼近理想解排序(TOPSIS)法更具有可靠性;该模型考虑指标之间相互影响、相互关联情况,能够得到较为准确、科学的评价结果。

关键词: Choquet模糊积分, 煤矿, 安全投入, 经济效益, 2-可加模糊测度

Abstract:

In order to improve the economic benefits of coal mining enterprises and reasonable arrangement of various safety inputs, a model to solve the correlation between indicators was constructed. Firstly, the influencing factors of economic benefits based on safety investment were analyzed, and a set of scientific and reasonable structural index systems was constructed on this basis. Secondly, the entropy weight method was used to determine the weight of each index. Then, in view of the correlation between indicators, based on the safety input structure, the entropy weight-Choquet fuzzy integral model based on a 2-additive fuzzy measure was introduced to calculate the economic benefit evaluation value. Finally, a coal mine was selected for empirical analysis to verify the feasibility and effectiveness of the constructed model. The results show that the constructed model is more reliable than technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution(TOPSIS) method. This model can take into account the mutual influence and correlation between indicators and obtain more accurate and scientific evaluation results.

Key words: choquet fuzzy integral, coal mine, safety input, economic benefits, 2-additive fuzzy measure

中图分类号:

X915.4安全经济学

姜福川, 金凤春, 张晓晓, 杨浩, 王昊, 盛兵旺. 基于Choquet模糊积分的煤矿安全投入经济效益评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(2): 76-82.

JIANG Fuchuan, JIN Fengchun, ZHANG Xiaoxiao, YANG Hao, WANG HAO, SHENG Bingwang. Economic benefit evaluation of coal mine safety input based on Choquet fuzzy integral[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(2): 76-82.

图/表 9

图1

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

表7

表8

参考文献 15

[1]	徐青云, 赵耀江, 李永明. 我国煤矿事故统计分析及今后预防措施[J]. 煤炭工程, 2015, 47(3):80-82.
	XU Qingyun, ZHAO Yaojiang, LI Yongming. Statistical analysis and precautions of coal mine accidents in China[J]. Coal Engineering, 2015, 47(3):80-82.
[2]	赵宝福, 张超, 贾宝山, 等. 煤企安全投入评价的G-INFNs-MCGDM方法及应用[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(2):139-144. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.02.025
	ZHAO Baofu, ZHANG Chao, JIA Baoshan, et al. G-INFNs-MCGDM method for evaluating safety input in coal enterprises and its application[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2017, 27(2):139-144. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.02.025
[3]	任海芝, 陈玉琴, 程恋军. 煤炭企业安全投入规模与投入结构优化研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2014, 24(8):3-8.
	REN Haizhi, CHEN Yuqin, CHENG Lianjun. Study on optimizing both size and structure of safety investment in coal enterprises[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2014, 24(8):3-8.
[4]	赵宝福, 张超, 贾宝山, 等. TIFNs-AHP在煤炭企业安全投入中的应用[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2016, 26(3):145-150.
	ZHAO Baofu, ZHANG Chao, JIA Baoshan, et al. Research on application of TIFNs-AHP to safety investment in coal enterprises[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2016, 26(3):145-150.
[5]	姜福川, 周师, 吴增彤, 等. 基于熵权-TOPSIS法的煤矿安全投入决策分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(7):24-29. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.07.004
	JIANG Fuchuan, ZHOU Shi, WU Zengtong, et al. Analysis of coal mine safety investment decision based on entropy weight-TOPSIS method[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(7):24-29. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.07.004
[6]	陈全君. 企业安全投入及其指标体系的构建研究[J]. 中国煤炭, 2005, 31(9):77-79,81.
	CHEN Quanjun. Research for the building of enterprise's safety input and its index system[J]. China Coal, 2005, 31(9):77-79,81.
[7]	李树刚, 成连平, 景兴鹏, 等. 煤矿安全投入评价指标体系构建方法研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2009, 5(5):93-96.
	LI Shugang, CHENG Lianping, JING Xingpeng, et al. Study on construction method of evaluation index system for safety input of coal mine[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2009, 5(5):93-96.
[8]	樊占文, 张书豪, 钟基超. 安全信息在事故致因模型中的应用与研究[J]. 化工安全与环境, 2022, 35(42):6-11.
[9]	冯银虎, 王世铎, 纪祥勋. 基于熵权-TOPSIS模型的煤炭上市企业技术创新能力评价研究[J]. 中国矿业, 2020, 29(11):43-49.
	FENG Yinhu, WANG Shiduo, JI Xiangxun. Research on evaluation of technical innovation ability of coal listed enterprises based on the entropy weight-TOPSIS model[J]. China Mining Industry, 20, 29(11):43-49.
[10]	张钦, 陈纬. 废旧汽车发动机再制造过程绿色经济效益评价[J]. 现代制造工程, 2021(12):132-142.
	ZHANG Qin, CHEN Wei. Evaluation of green economy performance in the remanufacturing process of used automobile engine[J]. Modern Manufacturing Engineering, 2021(12):132-142.
[11]	武建章, 张强. 基于2-可加模糊测度的多准则决策方法[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 2010, 30(7):1229-1237. doi: 10.12011/1000-6788(2010)7-1229
	WU Jianzhang, ZHANG Qiang. Multicriteria decision making method based on 2-order additive fuzzy measures[J]. Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, 2010, 30(7):1229-1237.
[12]	张忠, 方可, 杨明. 基于2-可加模糊测度的仿真可信度评估方法[J]. 控制与决策, 2013, 28(1):147-151.
	ZHANG Zhong, FANG Ke, YANG Ming. Method for simulation credibility evaluation based on 2-additive fuzzy measures[J]. Control and Decision, 2013, 28(1):147-151.
[13]	章玲, 周德群. 基于κ-可加模糊测度的多属性决策分析[J]. 管理科学学报, 2008, 11(6):18-24.
	ZHANG Ling, ZHOU Dequn. Multiple attributes decision making based on k-additive fuzzy measures[J]. Journal of Management Science, 2008, 11(6):18-24.
[14]	常志朋, 程龙生. 灰模糊积分关联度决策模型[J]. 中国管理科学, 2015, 23(11):105-111.
	CHANG Zhipeng, CHENG Longsheng. Grey fuzzy integral correlation degree decision model[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2015, 23(11):105-111.
[15]	叶文涛, 成连华. 高质量发展下煤矿企业安全投入产出效率评价[J]. 西安科技大学学报, 2021, 41(4):700-707.
	YE Wentao, CHENG Lianhua. Safety input-output efficiency evaluation of coal mining enterprises under high quality development[J]. Journal of Xi 'an University of Science and Technology, 2021, 41(4):700-707.

项目	模糊等级	打分标准
重复性	极强	-0.90
	非常强	-0.70
	强	-0.50
独立性	较强	-0.30
	独立	0.00
	较强	0.30
互补性	强	0.50
	非常强	0.70
	极强	0.90

指标	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
x₁/万元	1 530.42	1 610.96	1 770.29	3 218.70	4 951.85	6 602.47	7 767.61	6 214.09	3 403.90	3 169.55	3 328.03
x₂/万元	50.01	52.64	57.85	74.17	95.09	121.91	156.30	127.05	97.80	109.70	115.19
x₃/万元	660.94	695.72	764.53	745.85	783.22	708.48	857.96	558.99	260.02	311.20	326.76
x₄/万元	304.17	320.18	351.85	370.37	389.86	410.38	431.98	411.41	467.51	531.26	557.82
x₅/万元	1 096.53	1 154.24	1 268.40	1 441.36	1 637.91	1 861.26	2 115.07	1 823.34	2 025.93	2 127.23	2 233.59
x₆/万元	84.33	86.05	86.92	93.47	100.50	108.07	116.20	105.32	100.53	108.51	113.94
x₇/万元	214.16	225.43	247.73	260.77	283.44	314.94	316.84	320.04	313.76	307.61	322.91
x₈/万t	67.41	70.95	77.97	74.97	83.71	150.51	163.36	172.16	157.05	151.56	161.03

年份	x₁	x₂	x₃	x₄	x₅	x₆	x₇	x₈
2009	0.00 0	0.000 0	0.670 5	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0	0.000 0
2010	0.012 9	0.024 7	0.728 7	0.063 1	0.050 8	0.054 0	0.033 8	0.896 4
2011	0.038 5	0.073 8	0.843 7	0.188 0	0.151 2	0.081 3	0.100 8	0.691 3
2012	0.270 7	0.227 3	0.812 5	0.261 0	0.303 3	0.286 8	0.072 2	0.571 4
2013	0.548 6	0.424 1	0.875 0	0.337 8	0.476 1	0.507 4	0.155 6	0.362 9
2014	0.813 2	0.676 5	0.750 0	0.418 7	0.672 6	0.744 9	0.793 3	0.073 3
2015	1.000 0	1.000 0	1.000 0	0.503 9	0.895 8	1.000 0	0.916 0	0.055 8
2016	0.750 9	0.724 8	0.500 0	0.422 8	0.639 2	0.658 6	1.000 0	0.026 4
2017	0.300 4	0.449 6	0.000 0	0.644 0	0.817 4	0.508 3	0.855 8	0.084 1
2018	0.262 8	0.561 6	0.085 6	0.895 3	0.906 5	0.758 7	0.803 3	0.140 7
2019	0.288 2	0.613 2	0.111 6	1.000 0	1.000 0	0.929 1	0.893 7	0.000 0

交互指标	交互关系	交互度	交互指标	交互关系	交互度	交互指标	交互关系	交互度	交互指标	交互关系	交互度
{A,B}	互补	0.2	{B,C}	互补	0.1	{C,E}	互补	0.2	{D,H}	互补	0.4
{A,C}	互补	0.1	{B,D}	互补	0.1	{C,F}	互补	0.1	{E,F}	互补	0.1
{A,D}	互补	0.4	{B,E}	互补	0.2	{C,G}	重复	-0.4	{E,G}	重复	-0.4
{A,E}	互补	0.1	{B,F}	互补	0.1	{C,H}	互补	0.4	{E,H}	互补	0.4
{A,F}	互补	0.1	{B,G}	重复	-0.4	{D,E}	互补	0.2	{F,G}	重复	-0.4
{A,G}	重复	-0.4	{B,H}	互补	0.4	{D,F}	互补	0.1	{F,H}	互补	0.4
{A,H}	互补	0.4	{C,D}	互补	0.2	{D,G}	重复	-0.4	{G,H}	重复	-0.5

系数	数值	系数	数值	系数	数值	系数	数值	系数	数值
m_A	0.144 9	m_AB	0.003 3	m_BD	0.001 2	m_CG	-0.006 8	m_EH	0.005 9
m_B	0.115 3	m_AC	0.001 3	m_BE	0.002 3	m_CH	0.005 2	m_FG	-0.008 2
m_C	0.088 1	m_AD	0.005 9	m_BF	0.001 2	m_DE	0.002 0	m_FH	0.006 4
m_D	0.102 0	m_AE	0.001 5	m_BG	-0.008 9	m_DF	0.001 1	m_GH	-0.014 3
m_E	0.100 0	m_AF	0.001 6	m_BH	0.006 9	m_DG	-0.007 8
m_F	0.107 3	m_AG	-0.011 1	m_CD	0.001 8	m_DH	0.006 1
m_G	0.191 8	m_AH	0.008 6	m_CE	0.001 8	m_EF	0.001 1
m_H	0.148 4	m_BC	0.001 0	m_CF	0.000 9	m_EG	-0.007 7