Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Developing a model for determining the criticality level in gas industries using effective factors and balanced scorecards

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Gas industries are always subject to accidents and crises. The various units of these industries possess some characteristics that can cause the emergence and intensification of crises. Managers of these industries are always looking for effective factors and units with more criticality. Therefore, understanding the factors affecting the criticality and presenting an appropriate model to determine the criticality level in various units of gas industries are important. In the present study, the effective factors in the emergence and exacerbation of the crisis in the gas industries were identified and weighed. They were then classified based on the weights allocated by the experts. Next, models were presented on the basis of factors importance. Two selected industries were evaluated using the proposed models, and the results were compared with each other as well as with the results of the risk assessment performed in these units. In this study, 39 effective factors were introduced regarding the potential for developing criticality. In the next step, according to the experts opinions, 12, 16, 11 factors were classified as very important, important, and less important categories, respectively. Further, two models were also suggested for complete and rapid evaluation of various units of the gas industries. The results of evaluation of various units revealed that the models presented were capable of evaluating various units of the gas industry with high accuracy within the order of 100–400 that can be used to prioritize preventive and control measures.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ambuhl S, Dalsgaard Sørensen J (2017) Sensitivity of risk-based maintenance planning of offshore wind turbine farms. Energies 10:505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baesi S, Abdolhamidzadeh B, Hassan CRC, Hamid MD, Reniers G (2013) Application of a multi-plant QRA: a case study investigating the risk impact of the construction of a new plant on an existing chemical plant’s risk levels. J Loss Prev Process Ind 26:895–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagrezaei P, Zanjani H, Seifullahi S (2019) Investigation of relation between social capital and violence against women in families in Ilam during. Sci J Ilam Univ Med Sci 27:111–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertolini M, Bevilacqua M, Ciarapica F, Giacchetta G (2009) Development of risk-based inspection and maintenance procedures for an oil refinery. J Loss Prev Process Ind 22:244–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown P, Daigneault AJ, Tjernström E, Zou W (2018) Natural disasters, social protection, and risk perceptions. World Dev 104:310–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen L, Van Westen CJ, Hussin H, Ciurean RL, Turkington T, Chavarro-Rincon D, Shrestha DP (2016) Integrating expert opinion with modelling for quantitative multi-hazard risk assessment in the Eastern Italian Alps. Geomorphology 273:150–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen G, Huang K, Zou M, Yang Y, Dong H (2019) A methodology for quantitative vulnerability assessment of coupled multi-hazard in Chemical Industrial Park. J Loss Prev Process Ind 58:30–41

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Christmann A, Van Aelst S (2006) Robust estimation of Cronbach’s alpha. J Multivar Anal 97:1660–1674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fatemi F, Ardalan A, Aguirre B, Mansouri N, Mohammadfam I (2017) Social vulnerability indicators in disasters: findings from a systematic review. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 22:219–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gharpurea S, Roya S, Purang P, Bhattacharyya S (2018) Role of cultural dimensions in safety performance of global oil and gas industry. Rec Adv Petrochem Sci 5:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt KH, Kumar S (2016) Humanitarian operations and crisis/disaster management: a retrospective review of the literature and framework for development. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 20:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins IA, Guo Y, Kundu S, Choi KS, Mayberg H (2018) A differential degree test for comparing brain networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.11098

  • Hyatt N (2018) Guidelines for process hazards analysis (PHA, HAZOP), hazards identification, and risk analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Jafarigol F, Atabi F, Moattar F, Nouri J (2016) Predicting ambient concentrations of NO2 in a gas refinery located in South Pars Gas Complex. Int J Environ Sci Technol 13:897–906

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Khedmati A (2016) Identifying and ranking the indicators of crisis management with using VIKOR method. Manag Sci Lett 6:701–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mao YQ, Hu Y, Zhou XD, Cui J, Yang LZ (2018) Investigation of flammability, thermal and toxic hazards of liquid materials in vehicles. Key engineering materials. Trans Tech Publ, pp 292–298

  • Mobasher MA (2014) The consideration of efficient strategic plan indices in crises using balanced scorecard. Asian J Res Bus Econ Manag 4:251–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munir S, Asghar Z, Riaz M (2011) Performance evaluation of different tests for location parameters. Commun Stat Simul Comput 40:839–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nouri J, Omidvari M, Tehrani S (2010) Risk assessment and crisis management in gas stations. Int J Environ Res 4(1):143–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Nouri J, Mansouri N, Abbaspour M, Karbassi A, Omidvari M (2011) Designing a developed model for assessing the disaster induced vulnerability value in educational centers. Saf Sci 49:679–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omidvari M, Mansouri N, Nouri J (2015) A pattern of fire risk assessment and emergency management in educational center laboratories. Saf Sci 73:34–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pramanik S, Johnson VE, Bhattacharya A (2018) Higher significance with smaller samples: a modified sequential probability ratio test. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.08478

  • Rodríguez-ESPÍNDOLA O, Albores P, Brewster C (2018) Disaster preparedness in humanitarian logistics: a collaborative approach for resource management in floods. Eur J Oper Res 264:978–993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero JA (2012) Third party certification in ISO14001 & OHSAS18001. Do these certifications really add value? An Ecuadorian experience. International conference on health, safety and environment in oil and gas exploration and production. Society of Petroleum Engineers

  • Sa’idi E, Anvaripour B, Jaderi F, Nabhani N (2014) Fuzzy risk modeling of process operations in the oil and gas refineries. J Loss Prev Process Ind 30:63–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez E, Represa S, Mellado D, Balbi K, Acquesta A, Lerner JC, Porta A (2018) Risk analysis of technological hazards: simulation of scenarios and application of a local vulnerability index. J Hazard Mater 352:101–110

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Taber KS (2018) The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Res Sci Educ 48:1273–1296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tseng J, Su T, Kuo C (2012) Consequence evaluation of toxic chemical releases by ALOHA. Procedia Eng 45:384–389

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan-Lee H, Moriniere LC, Bremaud I, Turnbull M (2018) Understanding and measuring scalability in disaster risk reduction. Disaster Prev Manag Int J 27:407–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the help of South Pars Gas Complex (SPGC) for financial support (Grant Number: 306288) and providing data to perform the case study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Management, Faculty of Natural Resources and Environment, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

    A. Esmaili & R. Arjmandi

  2. Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Natural Resources and Environment, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

    N. Mansouri

  3. Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Institute, Tehran, Iran

    J. Ghoddousi

Authors
  1. A. Esmaili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N. Mansouri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Ghoddousi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Arjmandi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. Mansouri.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest and permission has been obtained for using data provided by Gas industries experts through questionnaires.

Additional information

Editorial responsibility: Hari Pant.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Esmaili, A., Mansouri, N., Ghoddousi, J. et al. Developing a model for determining the criticality level in gas industries using effective factors and balanced scorecards. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 17, 3329–3340 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-019-02618-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-019-02618-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation