IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v15y2018i6p1144-d150101.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Interactive Model among Potential Human Risk Factors: 331 Cases of Coal Mine Roof Accidents in China

Author

Listed:
  • Ruipeng Tong

    (School of Resources & Safety Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China)

  • Cunli Zhai

    (School of Resources & Safety Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China)

  • Qingli Jia

    (School of Resources & Safety Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China)

  • Chunlin Wu

    (School of Economics and Management, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
    Beijing Key Laboratory of Emergency Support Simulation Technologies for City Operations, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China)

  • Yan Liu

    (Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, Stevinweg 1, 2628 CN Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Surui Xue

    (School of Safety Engineering, China University of Labor Relations, Beijing 100048, China)

Abstract

In order to explore optimal strategies for managing potential human risk factors, this paper developed an interactive model among potential human risk factors based on the development processes of accidents. This model was divided into four stages, i.e., risk latency stage, risk accumulation stage, risk explosion stage and risk residue stage. Based on this model, this paper analyzed risk management procedures and relevant personal’s responsibility in each stage, and then probed into the interactive mechanism among human risk factors in three aspects, i.e., knowledge, information and communication. The validity and feasibility of the model was validated by analyzing a coal mine roof accident in China. In addition, the contribution of different functional levels’ personnel in risk evolution was discussed. It showed that this model can effectively reveal the interactive mechanism of potential human risk factors, and can thus give significant insights into the development of risk management theories and practices. It also proves that the contribution of different functional levels’ personnel in the model is different. This can further help practitioners design enhanced Behavioral-Based Safety (BBS) intervention approaches which can have a more sustainable and persistent impact on corporate personnel’s safety behavior. Specific recommendations and suggestions are provided fundamentally for future BBS practices in the coal mine industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruipeng Tong & Cunli Zhai & Qingli Jia & Chunlin Wu & Yan Liu & Surui Xue, 2018. "An Interactive Model among Potential Human Risk Factors: 331 Cases of Coal Mine Roof Accidents in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-20, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:6:p:1144-:d:150101
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/6/1144/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/6/1144/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Amundrud, Øystein & Aven, Terje, 2015. "On how to understand and acknowledge risk," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 42-47.
    2. Nawrocki, Tomasz Leszek & Jonek-Kowalska, Izabela, 2016. "Assessing operational risk in coal mining enterprises – Internal, industrial and international perspectives," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 50-67.
    3. Gerbec, Marko, 2010. "A reliability analysis of a natural-gas pressure-regulating installation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(11), pages 1154-1163.
    4. Aven, Terje, 2015. "On the allegations that small risks are treated out of proportion to their importance," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 116-121.
    5. Shasha Li & Guofang Zhai & Shutian Zhou & Chenjing Fan & Yunqing Wu & Chongqiang Ren, 2017. "Insight into the Earthquake Risk Information Seeking Behavior of the Victims: Evidence from Songyuan, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-16, March.
    6. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    7. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    8. Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Guiding Resource Allocations Based on Terrorism Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 597-606, June.
    9. Aven, Terje & Zio, Enrico, 2011. "Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 64-74.
    10. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2010. "Risk Management and Governance," Risk, Governance and Society, Springer, number 978-3-642-13926-0, March.
    11. Song, Xiaoqian & Mu, Xiaoyi, 2013. "The safety regulation of small-scale coal mines in China: Analysing the interests and influences of stakeholders," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 472-481.
    12. Eugene A. Rosa, 1998. "Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(1), pages 15-44, January.
    13. Aven, Terje, 2012. "The risk concept—historical and recent development trends," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 33-44.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kapo Wong & Alan Hoi Shou Chan, 2018. "Emerging Issues in Occupational Safety and Health," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-4, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aven, Terje & Krohn, Bodil S., 2014. "A new perspective on how to understand, assess and manage risk and the unforeseen," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 1-10.
    2. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    3. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    4. Goerlandt, Floris & Montewka, Jakub, 2015. "Maritime transportation risk analysis: Review and analysis in light of some foundational issues," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 115-134.
    5. Veland, H. & Aven, T., 2013. "Risk communication in the light of different risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 34-40.
    6. Aven, Terje, 2013. "A conceptual framework for linking risk and the elements of the data–information–knowledge–wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 30-36.
    7. Amro Nasr & Oskar Larsson Ivanov & Ivar Björnsson & Jonas Johansson & Dániel Honfi, 2021. "Towards a Conceptual Framework for Built Infrastructure Design in an Uncertain Climate: Challenges and Research Needs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-19, October.
    8. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    9. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    10. Thomas Ying‐Jeh Chen & Valerie Nicole Washington & Terje Aven & Seth David Guikema, 2020. "Review and Evaluation of the J100‐10 Risk and Resilience Management Standard for Water and Wastewater Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 608-623, March.
    11. Aven, Terje, 2018. "Perspectives on the nexus between good risk communication and high scientific risk analysis quality," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 290-296.
    12. Aven, Terje, 2012. "On the link between risk and exposure," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 191-199.
    13. Montewka, Jakub & Goerlandt, Floris & Kujala, Pentti, 2014. "On a systematic perspective on risk for formal safety assessment (FSA)," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 77-85.
    14. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Thai, Vinh V., 2021. "An Operational Risk Analysis Model for Container Shipping Systems considering Uncertainty Quantification," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    15. Aven, Terje, 2015. "Implications of black swans to the foundations and practice of risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 83-91.
    16. Aven, Terje, 2012. "The risk concept—historical and recent development trends," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 33-44.
    17. Charles Sabel & Gary Herrigel & Peer Hull Kristensen, 2018. "Regulation under uncertainty: The coevolution of industry and regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 371-394, September.
    18. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Shi, Wenming, 2019. "A quantitative risk analysis model with integrated deliberative Delphi platform for container shipping operational risks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 203-227.
    19. Peng Hou & Xiaojian Yi & Haiping Dong, 2020. "A Spatial Statistic Based Risk Assessment Approach to Prioritize the Pipeline Inspection of the Pipeline Network," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, February.
    20. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Probabilities and background knowledge as a tool to reflect uncertainties in relation to intentional acts," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 229-234.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:6:p:1144-:d:150101. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.