4.5 Article

Mapping human vulnerability and risk due to chemical accidents

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104289

关键词

Chemical accidents; Population vulnerability; Societal indicators; Risk assessment; Land use

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chemical accidents in the vicinity of densely populated areas can cause colossal damage. Close proximity of chemical facilities to the general public has been identified as a major issue for increased human exposure in 43% of the accidents investigated by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB). This emphasises the need for incorporating societal factors in risk assessment to plan actions in order to minimise exposure during accidents. The purpose of this research is to develop a model for the assessment of human vulnerability and risk due to chemical accidents. A GIS based methodology is proposed which uses computer aided hazard modelling tools and technical guidelines to model accidents and assesses population vulnerability. The population vulnerability is determined based on a set of societal indicators derived from relevant research work, expert opinions and suggestions by World Bank. Risk is defined as the probable magnitude of harm to humans and dependent on both the degrees of hazard and vulnerability. A case study is carried out by applying the methodology to Meghnaghat Industrial Area in Bangladesh. Accident scenarios are built and hazard modelling software ALOHA is used to spatially display accident footprints. Vulnerability of population is assessed using data from Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) and field survey. The hazard footprints and vulnerability map are superimposed using mapping software ArcGIS to generate a composite risk map. The risk map is used to assess existing land use and recommendations are made for future land use planning. The composite risk map is expected to be of help for effective community response, emergency response planning and allocation of medical and support services during emergencies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据