IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i22p12923-d685111.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Study of the Hazardous Chemical Transportation Accident Analyses Using the CREAM Model and the 24Model

Author

Listed:
  • Wei Jiang

    (School of Emergency Management and Safety Engineering, China University of Mining & Technology (Beijing), Ding No. 11 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Yun Li

    (China Three Gorges Projects Development Co., Ltd., Three Gorges Building, Fucheng Avenue East No. 288, Gaoxin Zone, Chengdu 610094, China)

  • Jiankai Zhou

    (School of Emergency Management and Safety Engineering, China University of Mining & Technology (Beijing), Ding No. 11 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Zhishun Huang

    (School of Emergency Management and Safety Engineering, China University of Mining & Technology (Beijing), Ding No. 11 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Zonghao Wu

    (School of Emergency Management and Safety Engineering, China University of Mining & Technology (Beijing), Ding No. 11 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100083, China)

Abstract

Compared with other types of transportation, hazardous chemical transportation is more dangerous and more likely to cause accidents, such as combustion and explosion. To better study the advantages of different accident analysis models and realize the sustainable development of the accident analysis, this paper compares the 24Model and the cognitive reliability and error analysis method in their analyses of causes of hazardous chemical transportation accidents. Regarding their analyses of the causes of hazardous chemical transportation accidents, the causal factors of hazardous chemical transportation accidents are obtained. Then the analysis results of the two models are compared on three aspects: the object of accident influence, the module of accident analysis, and the number of accident causes. Gray correlation analysis and regression analysis are used to quantitatively compare and verify the focus of the two models on the cause of the accident. The results show that the 24Model emphasizes the safety culture of the enterprise, the cognitive reliability and error analysis method emphasizes the technology of the enterprise, and the two accident analysis models provide different emphases on preventing accidents to better achieve the goal of sustainable development.

Suggested Citation

  • Wei Jiang & Yun Li & Jiankai Zhou & Zhishun Huang & Zonghao Wu, 2021. "Comparative Study of the Hazardous Chemical Transportation Accident Analyses Using the CREAM Model and the 24Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-18, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:22:p:12923-:d:685111
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12923/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12923/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Qiao, Wanguan & Li, Xinchun & Liu, Quanlong, 2019. "Systemic approaches to incident analysis in coal mines: Comparison of the STAMP, FRAM and “2–4” models," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1-1.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Xiangmei, Wang & Xiaoxiao, Geng & Wang, Yingchen, 2023. "Research on the network topology characteristics of unsafe behavior propagation in coal mine group from the perspective of human factors," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(PA).
    2. Ismail, Siti Noraishah & Ramli, Azizan & Aziz, Hanida Abdul, 2021. "Influencing factors on safety culture in mining industry: A systematic literature review approach," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    3. Mahdieh Delikhoon & Esmaeil Zarei & Osiris Valdez Banda & Mohammad Faridan & Ehsanollah Habibi, 2022. "Systems Thinking Accident Analysis Models: A Systematic Review for Sustainable Safety Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-28, May.

    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:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:22:p:12923-:d:685111. 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.