Agent-based geosimulation for assessment of urban emergency response plans

Original Paper
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

The operational efficiency of an urban emergency response plan (UERP) is proportional to the magnitude of a rigorous assessment process. The core objective of the assessment process is to identify possible deficiencies, in particular, micro-deficiencies existing within the emergency plans. Most of the existing approaches rely on multi-criteria and emergency state for assessments. However, identification of micro-deficiencies requires developing a comprehensive microscopic model of the entire emergency system and simulating an emergency plan under various scenarios. Here, an assessment framework is proposed based on agent-based modeling and geosimulation and considering the urban features for general and microscopic assessment of urban emergency response plans. To enrich our claim, this framework is applied to assess the futuristic emergency infrastructure plan of upgrading overhead water tanks (OWT) to be used for recharging fire emergency vehicles in case of fire incidents to improve fire suppression time by the Fire Department of Allahabad City, an urban city of India.

Keywords

Geosimulation Urban emergency response Agent-based modeling GIS 

Supplementary material

12517_2018_3523_MOESM1_ESM.docx (26 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 26 kb)

References

  1. Amouroux E, Chu TQ, Boucher A, Drogoul A (2007) GAMA: an environment for implementing and running spatially explicit multi-agent simulations. In Pacific Rim International Conference on Multi-Agents, pp. 359–371. Springer Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernardes SMF, Rebelo F, Vilar E, Noriega P, Borges T (2015) Methodological approaches for use virtual reality to develop emergency evacuation simulations for training, in emergency situations. Procedia Manuf 3:6313–6320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bukowski RW, Hurley MJ (2003) Fire hazard analysis techniques. NFPA, Fire Protection Handbook, Section 3: 121–134Google Scholar
  4. Chen CC, Nagl SB, Clack CD (2007) Specifying, detecting and analysing emergent behaviours in multi-level agent-based simulations. In Proceedings of the 2007 Summer Computer Simulation Conference, pp. 969–976. Society for Computer Simulation InternationalGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen A, Chen N, Li J (2012) During-incident process assessment in emergency management: concept and strategy. Saf Sci 50(1):90–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fagel MJ (2011) ed. Principles of emergency management: hazard specific issues and mitigation strategies. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Girard C, David P, Piatyszek E, Flaus J-M (2016a) Emergency response plan: model-based assessment with multi-state degradation. Saf Sci 85:230–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Girard C, David P, Piatyszek E, Flaus J-M (2016b) Emergency response plan: model-based assessment with multi-state degradation. Saf Sci 85:230–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grimwood P, Barnett C (2005) Fire-fighting flow rate, www.firetactics.com
  10. Guo D, Ren B, Wang C (2008) Integrated agent-based modeling with GIS for large scale emergency simulation. In: International symposium on intelligence computation and applications. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 618–625Google Scholar
  11. Heard D, Dent G, Schifeling T, Banks D (2015) Agent-based models and microsimulation. Annu Rev Stat Appl 2:259–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heppenstall AJ, Crooks AT, See LM, Batty M, eds. Agent-based models of geographical systems. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011Google Scholar
  13. Ju Y, Wang A, Liu X (2012) Evaluating emergency response capacity by fuzzy AHP and 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic approach. Expert Syst Appl 39(8):6972–6981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu Y, Fan Z-P, Zhang Y (2014) Risk decision analysis in emergency response: a method based on cumulative prospect theory. Comput Oper Res 42:75–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mendonca D, Beroggi GEG, Van Gent D, Wallace WA (2006) Designing gaming simulations for the assessment of group decision support systems in emergency response. Saf Sci 44(6):523–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mysore V, Narzisi G, Mishra B (2006) Emergency response planning for a potential sarin gas attack in Manhattan using agent-based models. In: Proceedings of the first international workshop on agent technology for disaster management, Hakodate, Japan, pp 108–115Google Scholar
  17. Navidi WC (2006) Statistics for engineers and scientists. Vol. 2. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Olson DK, Scheller A, Wey A (2014) Using gaming simulation to evaluate bioterrorism and emergency readiness training. J Public Health Manag Pract 20:S52–S60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Olson DK, Hoeppner MM, Scaletta K, Peck M, Newkirk R Games, simulations, and learning in emergency preparedness: a review of the literature. Am J Disaster Med 7(2, 2011):145–154Google Scholar
  20. Paganini M, Borrelli F, Cattani J, Ragazzoni L, Djalali A, Carenzo L, Corte FD, Frederick M Jr, Ingrassia PL (2016) Assessment of disaster preparedness among emergency departments in Italian hospitals: a cautious warning for disaster risk reduction and management capacity. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 24(1):101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pilone E, Mussini P, Demichela M, Camuncoli G (2016) Municipal emergency plans in Italy: requirements and drawbacks. Saf Sci 85:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ren P, Xu Z, Jing G (2016) Assessments of the effectiveness of an earthquake emergency plan implementation with hesitant analytic hierarchy process. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 15(06):1367–1389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Särdqvist S (1996) An engineering approach to fire-fighting tactics , Report 1014, Department of Fire Safety Engineering, Lund University, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  24. Schoenharl T, Madey G, Szabó G, Barabási AL (2006) WIPER: a multi-agent system for emergency response. In Proceedings of the 3rd international ISCRAM conference, vol. 1.Google Scholar
  25. Taillandier P, Vo DA, Amouroux E, Drogoul A (2010) GAMA: a simulation platform that integrates geographical information data, agent-based modeling and multi-scale control. In International Conference on Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 242–258. Springer Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  26. Training Manual—How to Conduct Emergency Management Exercise (EMEx)National Disaster Management Authority, Government of India (2016)Google Scholar
  27. Wagner N, Agrawal V (2014) An agent-based simulation system for concert venue crowd evacuation modeling in the presence of a fire disaster. Expert Syst Appl 41(6):2807–2815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Walker WE, Giddings J, Armstrong S (2011) Training and learning for crisis management using a virtual simulation/gaming environment. Cogn Tech Work 13(3):163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wooldridge M, Jennings NR (1995) Intelligent agents: theory and practice. Knowl Eng Rev 10(02):115–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Bo Y, Wu YG, Wang C (2009) A multi-agent and GIS based simulation for emergency evacuation in park and public square. In IEEE, international conference computational intelligence and security, 2009. CIS’09. on, vol. 1, pp. 211–216Google Scholar
  31. Zhang G, Ma J, Jie L (2009) Emergency management evaluation by a fuzzy multi-criteria group decision support system. Stoch Env Res Risk A 23(4):517–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhong M, Shi C, Tairan F, He L, Shi J (2010) Study in performance analysis of China Urban Emergency Response System based on Petri net. Saf Sci 48(6):755–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhou J, Reniers G, Khakzad N (2016) Application of event sequence diagram to evaluate emergency response actions during fire-induced domino effects. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 150:202–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GIS CellMotilal Nehru National Institute of TechnologyAllahabadIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringMotilal Nehru National Institute of TechnologyAllahabadIndia

Personalised recommendations