Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A hybrid and integrated approach to evaluate and prevent disasters

  • General Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

Disasters are, by their nature, very complex phenomena. Their modelling using a systematic and logical methodology can help us identify their root causes and may facilitate in allocating appropriate resources to prevent such situations. Although techniques exist to model such phenomena, a single off-the-shelf model is insufficient to provide an effective and realistic analysis to prevent disasters due to its inherent assumptions. In order to overcome these limitations of single methods, this article proposes a hybrid model of four methods to optimise a safety investment. First, a hierarchy is constructed with a problem structuring approach. Second, a new graphical representation, the Crisis Tree Analysis, is introduced to visualise how a combination of basic events may lead to a disaster. Third, the criticality of each event is assessed using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Finally, a mathematical programming model is proposed to calculate the optimal allocation of available funds in order to avoid the disaster. A case study of the Bhopal disaster is used to illustrate the proposed four-step method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmed R, Koo J, Jeong Y and Heo G (2011). Design of safety-critical systems using the complementarities of success and failure domains with a case study. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 96 (1): 201–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahn B and Choi S (2007). ERP system selection using a simulation-based AHP approach: A case of Korean homeshopping company. Journal of the Operational Research Society 59 (3): 322–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akarte M, Surendra N, Ravi B and Rangaraj N (2001). Web based casting supplier evaluation using analytical hierarchy process. Journal of the Operational Research Society 52 (5): 511–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apostolakis G and Lemon D (2005). A screening methodology for the identification and ranking of infrastructure vulnerabilities due to terrorism. Risk Analysis 25 (2): 361–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aro P et al (1985). The Report of the ICFTU-ICEF Mission to Study the Causes and Effects of the Methyl Isocyanate Gas Leak at the Union Carbide Pesticide Plant in Bhopal. ICFTU-ICEF: Brussels/Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banuelas R and Antony J (2006). Application of stochastic analytic hierarchy process within a domestic appliance manufacturer. Journal of the Operational Research Society 58 (1): 29–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertolini M and Bevilacqua M (2006). A combined goal programming—AHP approach to maintenance selection problem. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 91 (7): 839–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogard W (1989). The Bhopal Tragedy: Language, Logic, and Politics in the Production of a Hazard. Westview Press: San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cagno E, Caron F, Mancini M and Ruggeri F (2000). Using AHP in determining the prior distributions on gas pipeline failures in a robust Bayesian approach. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 67 (3): 275–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnero C (2006). An evaluation system of the setting up of predictive maintenance programmes. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 91 (8): 945–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassels J (1993). The Uncertain Promise of Law: Lessons from Bhopal. University of Toronto Press: Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen L and Cai J (2003). Using vector projection method to evaluate maintainability of mechanical system in design review. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 81 (2): 147–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chouhan T (2005). The unfolding of Bhopal disaster. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 18 (4–6): 205–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corporation R (2007). System Analysis Reference: Reliability, Availability and Optimization. ReliaSoft Publishing: Tucson, AZ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox L (2002). Risk Analysis Foundations, Models, and Methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston/Dordrecht/London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott M (2010). Selecting numerical scales for pairwise comparisons. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 95 (7): 750–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferdous R, Khan F, Sadiq R, Amyotte P and Veitch B (2009a). Handling data uncertainties in event tree analysis. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 87 (5): 283–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferdous R, Khan F, Veitch B and Amyotte P (2009b). Methodology for computer aided fuzzy fault tree analysis. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 87 (4): 217–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferdous R, Khan F, Sadiq R, Amyotte P and Veitch B (2011). Fault and event tree analyses for process systems risk analysis: Uncertainty handling formulations. Risk Analysis 31 (1): 86–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferdous R, Khan F, Sadiq R, Amyotte P and Veitch B (2012). Handling and updating uncertain information in bow-tie analysis. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 25 (1): 8–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferdous R, Khan F, Sadiq R, Amyotte P and Veitch B (2013). Analyzing system safety and risks under uncertainty using a bow-tie diagram: An innovative approach. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 91 (1–2): 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama H and Weber W (2002). Evaluating public school district performance via DEA gain functions. Journal of the Operational Research Society 53 (9): 992–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallucci R (2012). ‘What—me worry?’‘Why so serious?’: A personal view on the Fukushima nuclear reactor accidents. Risk Analysis 32 (9): 1444–1450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghodsypour S and O'Brien C (1998). A decision support system for supplier selection using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and linear programming. International Journal of Production Economics 56–57: 199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta J (2002). The Bhopal gas tragedy: Could it have happened in a developed country? Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 15 (1): 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ha J and Seong P (2004). A method for risk-informed safety significance categorization using the analytic hierarchy process and Bayesian belief networks. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 83 (1): 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ha J and Seong P (2009). A human–machine interface evaluation method: A difficulty evaluation method in information searching (DEMIS). Reliability Engineering and System Safety 94 (10): 1557–1567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho W and Emrouznejad A (2009). Multi-criteria logistics distribution network design using SAS/OR. Expert Systems with Applications 36 (3, Part 2): 7288–7298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho W, Lee C and Ho G (2010). Multiple criteria optimization of contemporary logistics distribution network problems. OR Insight 23 (1): 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishizaka A and Labib A (2009). Analytic hierarchy process and expert choice: Benefits and limitations. OR Insight 22 (4): 201–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishizaka A, Balkenborg D and Kaplan T (2011). Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation. Journal of the Operational Research Society 62 (10): 1801–1812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshua S and Garber N (1992). A causal analysis of large vehicle accidents through fault-tree analysis. Risk Analysis 12 (2): 173–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karydas D and Gifun J (2006). A method for the efficient prioritization of infrastructure renewal projects. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 91 (1): 84–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khakzad N, Khan F and Amyotte P (2011). Safety analysis in process facilities: Comparison of fault tree and Bayesian network approaches. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 96 (8): 925–932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khakzad N, Khan F and Amyotte P (2012). Dynamic risk analysis using bow-tie approach. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 104: 36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khakzad N, Khan F and Amyotte P (2013a). Dynamic safety analysis of process systems by mapping bow-tie into Bayesian network. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 91 (1–2): 46–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khakzad N, Khan F and Amyotte P (2013b). Risk-based design of process systems using discrete-time Bayesian networks. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 109 (0): 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kletz T (2001). Learing from Accidents. Gulf Professional Publishing: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokangul A and Susuz Z (2009). Integrated analytical hierarch process and mathematical programming to supplier selection problem with quantity discount. Applied Mathematical Modelling 33 (3): 1417–1429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee C and Kwak N (1999). Information resource planning for a health-care system using an AHP-based goal programming method. Journal of the Operational Research Society 50 (12): 1191–1198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lees F (1996). Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung L, Lam K and Cao D (2005). Implementing the balanced scorecard using the analytic hierarchy process & the analytic network process. Journal of the Operation Research Society 57 (6): 682–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Apostolakis G, Gifun J, VanSchalkwyk W, Leite S and Barber D (2009). Ranking the risks from multiple hazards in a small community. Risk Analysis 29 (3): 438–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Beullens P, Jones D and Tamiz M (2008). An integrated queuing and multi-objective bed allocation model with application to a hospital in China. Journal of the Operation Research Society 60 (3): 330–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell M and Perry R (1990). Effects of the Chernobyl accident on public perceptions of nuclear plant accident risks. Risk Analysis 10 (3): 393–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linkov I et al (2006). Multicriteria decision analysis: A comprehensive decision approach for management of contaminated sediments. Risk Analysis 26 (1): 61–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez F et al (2010). A quality risk management model approach for cell therapy manufacturing. Risk Analysis 30 (12): 1857–1871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mallor F, García-Olaverri C, Gómez-Elvira S and Mateo-Collazas P (2008). Expert judgment-based risk assessment using statistical scenario analysis: A case study—Running the bulls in Pamplona (Spain). Risk Analysis 28 (4): 1003–1019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marseguerra M, Zio E and Librizzi M (2007). Human reliability analysis by fuzzy ‘CREAM’. Risk Analysis 27 (1): 137–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martins M and Maturana M (2010). Human error contribution in collision and grounding of oil tankers. Risk Analysis 30 (4): 674–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millet I (1997). The effectiveness of alternative preference elicitation methods in the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6 (1): 41–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J, Liu W and Meng W (2007). Using SSM to structure the identification of inputs and outputs in DEA. Journal of the Operational Research Society 60 (2): 168–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özgen D, Önüt S, Gülsün B, Tuzkaya R and Tuzkaya G (2008). A two-phase possibilistic linear programming methodology for multi-objective supplier evaluation and order allocation problems. Information Sciences 178 (2): 485–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pareek K (1999). The managemnet did not adhere to safety norms. Interview. Down to Earth, 56.

  • Park K and Lee J (2008). A new method for estimating human error probabilities: AHP–SLIM. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 93 (4): 578–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pastor-Ferrando J, Aragones-Beltran P, Hospitaler-Perez A and Garcia-Melon M (2010). An ANP- and AHP-based approach for weighting criteria in public works bidding. Journal of the Operational Research Society 61 (6): 905–916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paté-Cornell E and Dillon R (2001). Probabilistic risk analysis for the NASA space shuttle: A brief history and current work. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 74 (3): 345–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulos T and Apostolakis G (1998). A methodology to select a wire insulation for use in habitable spacecraft. Risk Analysis 18 (4): 471–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rathnayaka S, Khan F and Amyotte P (2011a). SHIPP methodology: Predictive accident modeling approach. Part I: Methodology and model description. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 89 (3): 151–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rathnayaka S, Khan F and Amyotte P (2011b). SHIPP methodology: Predictive accident modeling approach. Part II. Validation with case study. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 89 (2): 75–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rathnayaka S, Khan F and Amyotte P (2012). Accident modeling approach for safety assessment in an LNG processing facility. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 25 (2): 414–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty T (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15 (3): 234–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty T (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty T (1987). Risk—Its priority and probability: The analytic hierarchy process. Risk Analysis 7 (2): 159–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty T, Vargas L and Dellmann K (2003). The allocation of intangible resources: The analytic hierarchy process and linear programming. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 37 (3): 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty T, Peniwati K and Shang J (2007). The analytic hierarchy process and human resource allocation: Half the story. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 46 (7–8): 1041–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders M, Lewis P and Thornhill A (2009). Research Methods for Business Students. Pearson: Harlow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sha D and Che Z (2005). Supply chain network design: Partner selection and production//distribution planning using a systematic model. Journal of the Operational Research Society 57 (1): 52–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava P (1987). Bhopal: Anatomy of Crisis. Ballinger Publishing Company: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skogdalen J and Vinnem J (2012). Quantitative risk analysis of oil and gas drilling, using Deepwater Horizon as case study. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 100 (0): 58–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen J (2002). Safety culture: A survey of the state-of-the-art. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 76 (2): 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steele K, Carmel Y, Cross J and Wilcox C (2009). Uses and misuses of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in environmental decision making. Risk Analysis 29 (1): 26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone D, Lynch S and Pandullo R (1995). Flares. [online], available: http://www.gasflare.org/pdf/Flare_Type.pdf, accessed 8 May 2013.

  • Taghipour S, Banjevic D and Jardine A (2011). Prioritization of medical equipment for maintenance decisions. Journal of the Operational Research Society 62 (9): 1666–1687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavana M (2005). A priority assessment multi-criteria decision model for human spaceflight mission planning at NASA. Journal of the Operational Research Society 57 (10): 1197–1215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thekdi S and Lambert J (2011). Decision analysis and risk models for land development affecting infrastructure systems. Risk Analysis 32 (7): 1253–1269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ting S-C and Cho D (2008). An integrated approach for supplier selection and purchasing decisions. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 13 (2): 116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todinov M (2006). Reliability analysis based on the losses from failures. Risk Analysis 26 (2): 311–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varma D and Mulay S (2009). Methyl isocyanate: The Bhopal gas. In: Gupta R (ed) Handbook of Toxicology of Chemical Warfare Agents. Elsevier: New York, pp 293–312.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Varma R and Varma D (2005). The Bhopal disaster of 1984. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 25 (1): 37–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vuilleumier F, Weatherill A and Crausaz B (2002). Safety aspects of railway and road tunnel: Example of the Lötschberg railway tunnel and Mont-Blanc road tunnel. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 17 (2): 153–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weir D (1987). The Bhopal Syndrome. Earthscan publications Limited: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler S (2005). An analysis of combined arms teaming for the Australian defence force. Journal of the Operational Research Society 57 (11): 1279–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao W, Liu Z, Jiang M and Shi Y (1998). Multiobjective linear programming model on injection oilfield recovery system. Computers & Mathematics with Applications 36 (5): 127–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang Z, Wang J, Bonsall S and Fang Q (2009). Use of fuzzy evidential reasoning in maritime security assessment. Risk Analysis 29 (1): 95–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeo G, Song D, Dinwoodie J and Roe M (2009). Weighting the competitiveness factors for container ports under conflicting interests. Journal of the Operational Research Society 61 (8): 1249–1257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youngblood R (1998). Applying risk models to formulation of safety cases. Risk Analysis 18 (4): 433–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zio E, Baraldi P and Popescu I (2008). A fuzzy decision tree for fault classification. Risk Analysis 28 (1): 49–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for the comprehensive and thoughtful comments and suggestions. We also wish to thank Sajid Siraj for the proofreading of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK

    Alessio Ishizaka & Ashraf Labib

Authors
  1. Alessio Ishizaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ashraf Labib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessio Ishizaka.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ishizaka, A., Labib, A. A hybrid and integrated approach to evaluate and prevent disasters. J Oper Res Soc 65, 1475–1489 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2013.59

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2013.59

Keywords

Search

Navigation