Evaluation of comprehensive emergency response capability for port ship oil spill with cloud gravity center evaluation method

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.04.1765

Abstract

Abstract:

To address the limitations of evaluating the emergency response capability of port ships for oil spills in a single stage and reasonably allocate resources, the cloud gravity center evaluation method was adopted to evaluate the comprehensive emergency response capability of port ships for oil spill. Facing the entire process of emergency preparedness, early warning, response and recovery, and referring to the theory of "man-machine-environment-management" system and international and domestic regulations, a comprehensive emergency response capability evaluation index system was established. To address the issue that the traditional evaluation indicators were not fuzzy and random, a weighted deviation degree was used to determine the transformation relationship between qualitative indicators and quantitative values. AHP was used to optimize evaluation opinions and compensate for accuracy deficiencies caused by insufficient evaluation samples. Finally, taking Shanghai Port as an example, an empirical study was conducted on the comprehensive emergency response capability evaluation of ship oil spills. The results show that the cloud gravity center evaluation method can reasonably evaluate the comprehensive emergency response capability of port ships for oil spills. This method provides a theoretical basis for improving and perfecting emergency response capability, and provides a new approach for the comprehensive emergency response capability evaluation of port ships for oil spills.

Key words: cloud gravity center evaluation method, ship oil-spill in ports, comprehensive emergency response capability, index system, weighted deviation, analytic hierarchy process (AHP)

CLC Number:

CHEN Weijiong, SU Ziwei, QIN Tingrong, HAN Weijia, WANG Kan, KANG Yutao. Evaluation of comprehensive emergency response capability for port ship oil spill with cloud gravity center evaluation method[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(4): 183-190.

Figures/Tables 12

Fig.1

Tab.1

Fig.2

Tab.2

Tab.3

Fig.3

Tab.4

Tab.5

Tab.6

Tab.7

Fig.4

Fig.5

References 19

[1]	ZHANG Chunchang, AN Wei, XIONG Deqi, et al. Research on the risk-based model for regional emergency resource allocation for ship-source oil spill[J]. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 2018, 37(11): 133-138.
[2]	王海燕, 郑鑫, 陈焕婉. 近岸水域船舶溢油应急保障能力评估[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2017, 17(3):840-844.
	WANG Haiyan, ZHENG Xin, CHEN Huanwan. Assessment of the emergency tackling capability for oil-shipping spills in the offshore waters[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2017, 17(3): 840-844.
[3]	金浏夏. 台州港溢油应急能力评估研究[D]. 大连: 大连海事大学, 2018.
	JIN Liuxia. Evaluation of oil spill emergency capability in Taizhou Port[D]. Dalian: Dalian Maritime University, 2018.
[4]	SHI Xin, WANG Ying, LUO Meifeng, et al. Assessing the feasibility of marine oil spill contingency plans from an information perspective[J]. Safety Science, 2019, 112(2): 38-47.
[5]	陈立家, 田延飞, 黄立文, 等. 港区船舶溢油应急联防设备库选址优化研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2014, 24(7):172-176.
	CHEN Lijia, TIAN Yanfei, HUANG Liwen. Optimal location of ship oil spill emergency equipment depot for port areas[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2014, 24(7): 172-176.
[6]	王海燕, 杨家其, 任军. 近岸水域溢油应急响应系统风险排序研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2014, 24(11):159-165.
	WANG Haiyan, YANG Jiaqi, REN Jun. Prioritizing risks in ERS for oil spills in near-shore waters[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2014, 24(11): 159-165.
[7]	李新宏, 张毅, 韩子月, 等. 基于风险与成本的海洋溢油事故应急控制决策[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(4):184-190. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.04.025
	LI Xinhong, ZHANG Yi, HAN Ziyue, et al. Risk and cost based emergency control decision-making for offshore oil spills[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(4): 184-190. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.04.025
[8]	李晶, 徐文辉, 李亚东. 海上溢油应急物资调度双目标规划模型[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2022, 18(1): 48-53.
	LI Jing, XU Wenhui, LI Yadong. Dual-objective planning model for emergency materials dispatching of offshore oil spill[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2022, 18(1): 48-53.
[9]	ZHANG Lingye, LU Jing, YANG Zaili. Optimal scheduling of emergency resources for major maritime oil spills considering time-varying demand and transportation networks[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2020, 293(2): 529-546.
[10]	JIN Weiwei, AN Wei, ZHAO Yupeng, et al. Research on evaluation of emergency response capacity of oil spill emergency vessels[J]. Aquatic Procedia, 2015, 3(3): 66-73.
[11]	欧阳武, 程启超, 金勇, 等. 基于熵权模糊综合评价法的水润滑尾轴承性能评估[J]. 中国机械工程, 2020, 31(12):1407-1414.
	OUYANG Wu, CHENG Qichao, JIN Yong, et al. Performance evaluation of water lubricated stern bearings based on entropy weight fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method[J]. Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2020, 31(12): 1407-1414.
[12]	李兴国. 基于灰色关联分析的犹豫模糊多属性决策模型构建及其应用[J]. 模糊系统与数学, 2019, 33(5):127-135.
	LI Xinguo. Construction and statistical test of hesitant fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making model based on grey relational analysis[J]. Fuzzy Systems and Mathematics, 2019, 33(5): 127-135.
[13]	DENG Zhenping, HUANG Darong, LIU Jinyu. An assessment method for traffic state vulnerability based on a cloud model for urban road network traffic systems[J]. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2021, 22(11): 7155-7168.
[14]	陈伟炯, 苏俊方, 张善杰, 等. 基于云模型的海上船舶溢油应急管理能力评估方法[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2020, 16(2):110-116.
	CHEN Weijiong, SU Junfang, ZHANG Shanjie, et al. Assessment method for emergency management capability of marine ship-source oil spill based on cloud model[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2020, 16(2): 110-116.
[15]	郑建辉, 王天辉, 张超恒. 基于云重心评判法的装备维修保障效能评估[J]. 舰船电子工程, 2016, 36(3):115-117, 129.
	ZHENG Jianhui, WANG Tianhui, ZHANG Chaoheng. Efficiency evaluation of equipment service base on cloud gravity center assessment method[J]. Ship Electronic Engineering, 2020, 16(2): 110-116.
[16]	陈信, 龙升照. 人-机-环境系统工程学概论[J]. 自然杂志, 1985, 8 (1): 36-38, 80.
[17]	陈伟炯. 海事预控的安全科学新理论探讨[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 1998, 8(6):8-12.
	CHEN Weijiong. Probe into the new theory of safety science on preventive control of marine accident[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 1998, 8(6): 8-12.
[18]	陈伟炯. 面向21世纪的海事控制理论探讨:船舶营运安全的基本要素结构[J]. 中国航海, 1999, 44(1): 34-38.
	CHEN Weijiong. An exploration of marine accident control theories for the 21^st century: structure of the basic elements of ship operation safety[J]. Navigation of China, 1999, 44(1): 34-38.
[19]	张艳艳, 刘晓佳, 张可, 等. 基于云重心评判法的海上交通安全态势评估模型[J]. 综合运输, 2018, 40(4): 22-26, 121.
	ZHANG Yanyan, LIU Xiaojia, ZHANG Ke, et al. Maritime traffic safety situation assessment based on cloud gravity center evaluation method[J]. China Transportation Review, 2018, 40(4): 22-26, 121.

目标层	一级指标	二级指标	具体说明
港口船舶溢油综合应急能力 U	应急准备能力U₁	应急管理机制U₁₁	指应急管理部门,指挥和管理应急事务的中枢机构
		应急预案体系U₁₂	针对溢油事故制定的应急方案
		应急规章制度U₁₃	针对应急制定的各项管理制度
		应急物资配置U₁₄	即物资的配置情况,包括物资的数量、种类、布点
		应急人员储备U₁₅	执行应急指令人员的数量与质量
	应急预警能力U₂	应急现场监管U₂₁	对提供预警信息的船舶进行动态监控和溢油监测
		应急值守监管U₂₂	监管预警组织的值班安排和应急响应效率
		应急应变演练U₂₃	指应急救援队伍培训的应急事故演练情况
		应急信息化U₂₄	系统采集发布天气灾害预报、水上水下紧急情况
	应急行动能力U₃	应急力量响应U₃₁	到达指定事故水域的速度和时间
		应急联动程序U₃₂	根据应急事故合理判断救援规模
		溢油应急指挥U₃₃	指溢油事故预判、应急方案确定、调度救助资源、指挥应急行动等
		应急力量调配U₃₄	按程度需求合理分配应急力量达到提高救援效率的目的
	应急恢复能力U₄	海域油污清除U₄₁	对从港口溢出到海上的油污实施清除作业的过程
		港口油污清除U₄₂	对港口和码头附近溢油进行清除作业
		溢油事故损失评估U₄₃	指对溢油事故造成的损失评估
		事故调查与评判U₄₄	事故等级评价和原因调查

标度值	标度值取值定义
1	表示指标i和指标j同等重要
3	表示指标i和指标j稍微重要
5	表示指标i和指标j明显重要
7	表示指标i和指标j强烈重要
9	表示指标i和指标j绝对重要
2、4、6、8	介于1、3、5、7、9的区间值
倒数	表示指标i和的重要程度不及指标j重要,即重要程度相反

指标	应急管理机制	应急预案体系	应急规章制度	应急物资配置	应急人员储备
状态1	很好	一般	一般	差	好
状态2	一般	很好	差	好	一般
状态3	很差	好	很好	差	很好
状态4	好	差	好	一般	好
状态5	一般	极好	一般	很好	差
理想状态	极好	极好	极好	极好	极好

指标	U₁₁	U₁₂	U₁₃	U₁₄	U₁₅
期望	0.533 4	0.666 6	0.566 6	0.533 2	0.6
熵	0.111	0.111	0.083	0.083	0.083

专家序号	U₁	U₂	U₃	U₄	λ_max	CR	通过检验
1	0.569 3	0.183 2	0.111 5	0.136	4.263 4	0.098 6	是
2	0.623 7	0.204 3	0.108 6	0.063 4	4.066 8	0.025	是
3	0.151 9	0.282 1	0.510 1	0.055 9	4.209 7	0.078 5	是
4	0.110 5	0.327 3	0.509 2	0.053	4.099 2	0.037 2	是