Bilateral matching decision model for earthquake emergency rescue personnel and injured victims

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.10.0656

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to improve the quality of rescue for injured people after earthquakes, starting from the matching problem between emergency rescue personnel and injured victims, focusing on the transportation and evacuation process of the injured, the process of decision-makers formulating matching plans for rescue personnel and victims was transformed into a one-to-many perfect matching problem, and a decision-making model was constructed to solve the optimal matching plan. Firstly, the matching influencing factors were analyzed from two aspects: the emergency environment and the needs of both parties. A scientific and reliable matching indicator system was designed, and information from both parties was collected based on matching indicators. Then, triangular fuzzy numbers were used to quantify the information of both parties. Characterized the perceived utility of decision makers on matching results based on regret theory. A bilateral matching decision model was established with the goal of maximizing perceived utility, and a genetic algorithm was used to solve the problem. Finally, a "9·5" Luding earthquake case was introduced to verify the effectiveness of the model and algorithm. The results show that the bilateral matching decision model based on regret theory can achieve the maximum goal of decision-maker's perceived utility, and the decision results meet the needs of rescue personnel and injured victims. It can effectively avoid matching schemes with low matching degrees between both parties, and improve the quality of earthquake emergency rescue.

Key words: earthquake disasters, ambulance personnel, injured disaster victims, bilateral matching, decision model, rescue quality, regret theory

LUO Hongsen, LIU Jiawang, YANG Qin. Bilateral matching decision model for earthquake emergency rescue personnel and injured victims[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(10): 224-233.

Figures/Tables 14

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Fig.4

Tab.4

Tab.5

Tab.6

Tab.7

Tab.8

Tab.9

Tab.10

References 16

[1]	王欣, 方成勇, 唐小川. 泸定Ms 6.8地震诱发滑坡应急评价研究[J]. 武汉大学学报:信息科学版, 2023, 48(1):25-35.
	WANG Xin, FANG Chengyong, TANG Xiaochuan, et al. Research on emergency evaluation of landslides induced by the Luding Ms 6.8 earthquake[J]. Geomatics and Information Science of Wuhan University, 2023, 48(1):25-35.
[2]	张晨晓, 祝蕊, 刘海月, 等. 考虑伤员心理状况的应急医疗救护问题研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2017, 25(10):187-196.
	ZHANG Chenxiao, ZHU Rui, LIU Haiyue, et al. The emergency victims rescue problem considering psychological condition[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2017, 25 (10): 187-196.
[3]	陈圣群, 王应明, 郑晶, 等. 考虑同群效应的志愿者与应急任务匹配方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2015, 25(11):156-162.
	CHEN Shengqun, WANG Yingming, ZHENG Jing, et al. A method considering peer effect for matching volunteers with emergence tasks[J]. China Safety Sciences Journal, 2015, 25 (11): 156-162.
[4]	李铭洋, 曲晓宁, 李博, 等. 考虑多救援点的突发事件应急救援人员派遣模型[J]. 运筹与管理, 2018, 27(8):50-56. doi: 10.12005/orms.2018.0180
	LI Mingyang, QU Xiaoning, LI Bo, et al. Model for emergency rescuers assignment considering multiple disaster areas[J]. Operations Research and Management Science, 2018, 27(8):50-56. doi: 10.12005/orms.2018.0180
[5]	姜艳萍, 梁霞, 张浩. 考虑后悔与失望行为的应急方案选择方法[J]. 运筹与管理, 2019, 28(11):91-97. doi: 10.12005/orms.2019.0253
	JIANG Yanping, LIANG Xia, ZHANG Hao. Method of selecting emergency alternative considering regret and disappointment behaviors of decision maker[J]. Operations Research and Management Science, 2019, 28 (11): 91-97. doi: 10.12005/orms.2019.0253
[6]	宋英华, 白明轩, 马亚萍, 等. 考虑多主体心理效应的应急资源调度超网络模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(2):158-166. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.02.022
	SONG Yinghua, BAI Mingxuan, MA Yaping, et al. Super-network model of emergency resource scheduling considering multi-agent psychological effect[J]. China Safety Sciences Journal, 2021, 31 (2): 158-166.
[7]	车萤, 雷中杰, 何成奇, 等. 188例芦山地震伤员伤情分类及早期康复策略[J]. 中国循证医学杂志, 2013, 13(6):657-661.
	CHE Ying, LEI Zhongjie, HE Chengqi, et al. Injury categorization and early rehabilitation strategy of 188 victims of Lushan earthquake[J]. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2013, 13(6):657-661.
[8]	夏哲远, 殷婷婷, 黄榕, 等. 护理人员参与“6·7”公交爆炸批量伤员救护体验的质性研究[J]. 解放军护理杂志, 2013, 30(14):5-8.
	XIA Zheyuan, YIN Tingting, HUANG Rong, et al. Qualitative research of nurses' mental experience for "6·7" mass blast patients rescu[J]. Military Nursing, 2013, 30 (14): 5-8.
[9]	张绮珊, 赖锦佳, 黄蝶卿, 等. 急诊科灾害专科护士工作体验的质性研究[J]. 护理学杂志, 2023, 38(3):58-61.
	ZHANG Qishan, LAI Jinjia, HUANG Dieqing, et al. Qualitative study on working experience of disaster specialist nurses in emergency department[J]. Journal of Nursing Science, 2023, 38 (3): 58-61.
[10]	袁铎宁, 姜艳萍, 梁海明. 考虑属性优先性的择期手术医患双边稳定匹配模型[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 2020, 40(9):2367-2 378.
	YUAN Duoning, JIANG Yanping, LIANG Haiming. Two-sided stable matching model between selective operation patients and surgeons considering the priority of attributes[J]. Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, 2020, 40 (9): 2 367-2 378.
[11]	郑国管, 王小合, 钱宇, 等. 患者满意度测评问题与治理路径思考[J]. 中国卫生政策研究, 2019, 12(3):8-16.
	ZHENG Guoguan, WANG Xiaohe, QIAN Yu, et al. Study of the challenges in the evaluation of patient satisfaction and the thinking of government path[J]. Chinese Journal of Health Policy, 2019, 12 (3): 8-16.
[12]	刘冉, 尤筱玥, 林辉, 等. 基于主客观赋权的企业专利组合质量评价[J]. 同济大学学报:自然科学版, 2023, 51(5):667-673.
	LIU Ran, YOU Xiaoyue, LIN Hui, et al. Firm patent portfolio quality evaluation based on combinatorial weighting method[J]. Journal of Tongji University:Natural Science, 2023, 51 (5): 667-673.
[13]	喻寅昀, 徐伟. 考虑顾客容忍区间的服务质量测评[J]. 统计与决策, 2019, 35(13):177-180.
	YU Yinyun, XU Wei. Service quality evaluation considering customer tolerance interval[J]. Statistics & Decision, 2019, 35 (13): 177-180.
[14]	李丽, 周荣义, 王凌睿, 等. 基于后悔理论的危化品公路桥梁运输风险评估[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2022, 29(2):71-77.
	LI Li, ZHOU Rongyi, WANG Lingrui, et al. Risk assessment of road bridge transportation of hazardous chemicals based on regret theory[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2022, 29 (2): 71-77.
[15]	许鹏, 刘敬贤, 陈淑楣, 等. 基于AHP群决策的三峡后续工作规划航运项目实施评估模型[J]. 中国航海, 2021, 44(3):84-91,111.
	XU Peng, LIU Jingxian, CHEN Shumei, et al. Implementation assessment model for waterway transport project of three gorges follow-up work plan based on AHP group decision making[J]. Navigation of China, 2021, 44 (3): 84-91,111.
[16]	汪新凡, 周浪, 朱远芳, 等. 基于后悔理论的概率犹豫模糊双边匹配决策方法[J]. 控制与决策, 2022, 37(9):2380-2388.
	WANG Xinfan, ZHOU Lang, ZHU Yuanfang, et al. Two-sided matching decision making method with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information based on regret theory[J]. Control and Decision, 2022, 37 (9): 2380-2388.

匹配指标	含义
沟通能力A₁	灾民正常交流与表述的能力
伤情严重A₂	不及时治疗对生命威胁的程度
伤情复杂A₃	治疗需要花费时间和资源的数量
情绪稳定A₄	能稳定控制自己语言和行为的能力

匹配指标	含义
理解能力B₁	正常交流并快速理解灾民想法的能力
救护态度B₂	对灾民持尊重、理解和安抚态度的能力
专业技术B₃	救护技术的专业性
资源设施B₄	资源和设施的充足完备程度
等待时间B₅	转运距离和等待接受救护的时间

语言变量	三角模糊数	代号
非常不重要/满意/符合	(0,0,0.17)	V₀
不重要/满意/符合	(0,0.17,0.33)	V₁
较不重要/满意/符合	(0.17,0.33,0.5)	V₂
一般重要/满意/符合	(0.3,0.50,0.67)	V₃
较重要/满意/符合	(0.50,0.67,0.83)	V₄
重要/满意/符合	(0.67,0.83,1)	V₅
非常重要/满意/符合	(0.83,1,1)	V₆

救护人员	需求	实情
H₁	(V₄,V₅,V₄,V₅)	(V₅,V₅,V₄,V₃,V₄)
H₂	(V₅,V₄,V₄,V₄)	(V₄,V₄,V₄,V₃,V₅)
H₃	(V₄,V₆,V₄,V₃)	(V₄,V₆,V₅,V₄,V₃)
H₄	(V₄,V₅,V₆,V₄)	(V₅,V₄,V₆,V₄,V4)
H₅	(V₅,V₅,V₅,V₄)	(V₄,V₅,V₄,V₅,V₅)
H₆	(V₄,V₅,V₄,V₅)	(V₅,V₅,V₅,V₅,V₄)

灾民	需求	实情
S₁	(V₄,V₄,V₄,V₄,V₆)	(V₄,V₂,V₃,V₄)
S₂	(V₅,V₄,V₅,V₄,V₅)	(V₄,V₄,V₂,V₄)
S₃	(V₅,V₆,V₄,V₆,V₄)	(V₃,V₂,V₃,V₅)
︙	︙	︙
S₁₄	(V₄,V₄,V₄,V₅,V₆)	(V₃,V₂,V₄,V₃)
S₁₅	(V₅,V₅,V₆,V₄,V₆)	(V₃,V₄,V₃,V₂)