Nuclear Engineering and Technology

  • 제54권7호
  • /
  • Pages.2519-2528
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 1738-5733(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-358X(eISSN)
한국원자력학회 (Korean Nuclear Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of child pick-up behavior on emergency evacuations

  • Jang, Sang Hoon (School of Urban and Environmental Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology) ;
  • Hwang, Ha (Division of Disaster & Safety Research, Korea Institute of Public Administration) ;
  • Chung, Ji-Bum (School of Urban and Environmental Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology)
  • 투고 : 2021.09.12
  • 심사 : 2022.01.30
  • 발행 : 2022.07.25
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The child pick-up behavior of parents during an emergency can cause heavy traffic congestion and failing to evacuate an affected area successfully. In this study, we analyzed the effect of child pick-up behavior using, as an example, a nuclear power plant accident caused by an earthquake, which is a typical no-notice emergency. A quake was assumed to occur near the Shin-Kori nuclear power plant in Ulsan, Korea, resulting in a nuclear power plant accident. An agent-based dynamic simulation model using VISSIM was employed to conduct sensitivity analyses with different child pick-up rates. The results confirmed that parents are a major cause of congestion and a vulnerable class in an emergency evacuation. The child pick-up behavior caused significant traffic congestion, and parents who pick up their children showed a higher evacuation failure rate.

키워드

과제정보

This work was supported by the Ministry of Interior and Safety (MOIS, Korea) [Technology Development Program on Disaster Restoration Capacity Building and Strengthening (grant No. 2021-MOIS36-002)].

참고문헌

  1. J.-B. Chung, E.-S. Kim, Public perception of energy transition in Korea: nuclear power, climate change, and party preference, Energy Pol. 116 (2018) 137-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.02.007
  2. N. Golshani, et al., Evacuation decision behavior for no-notice emergency events, Transport. Res. Transport Environ. 77 (2019) 364-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.01.025
  3. E.E. Tuncer, Operational Impact of Shadow Evacuation on Regional Road Networks during Short-Notice Emergency Evacuations, LSU Master's Theses, 2018.
  4. K. Clark, S. Bousquet, Irma's Here. But if You're Still Leaving by Car, This Is what Traffic Is like, The Miami Herald, 2017.
  5. U. Petruccelli, Urban evacuation in seismic emergency conditions, ITE J. 73 (8) (2003) 34-38.
  6. Chung, A Study on the Master Plan for Earthquake Prevention in Ulsan, 2018.
  7. C. Domonoske, Why Didn't Officials Order the Evacuation of Houston, National Public Radio, 2017.
  8. C. Bulumulla, et al., The importance of modelling realistic human behaviour when planning evacuation schedules, in: Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, 2017.
  9. T. Urbanik, Evacuation time estimates for nuclear power plants, J. Hazard Mater. 75 (2) (2000) 165-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(00)00178-3
  10. X. Chen, J.W. Meaker, F.B. Zhan, Agent-based modeling and analysis of hurricane evacuation procedures for the Florida Keys, Nat. Hazards 38 (3) (2006) 321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-005-0263-0
  11. T.J. Cova, J.P. Johnson, Microsimulation of neighborhood evacuations in the Urban-wildland interface, Environ. Plann. 34 (12) (2002) 2211-2229. https://doi.org/10.1068/a34251
  12. R. Goldblatt, Evacuation planning, human factors and traffic engineering perspectives, in: Proceedings of the 2004 European Transport Conference, Strasbourg, France, 2004.
  13. E. Harten, et al., Evaluation of traffic mitigation strategies for pre-hurricane emergency evacuations, in: Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium (SIEDS), 2018, IEEE, 2018.
  14. P. Edara, S. Sharma, C. McGhee, Development of a large-scale traffic simulation model for hurricane evacuation-methodology and lessons learned, Nat. Hazards Rev. 11 (4) (2010) 127-139. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000015
  15. M. Malesic, et al., Evacuation in the event of a nuclear disaster: planned activity or improvisation? Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduc. 12 (2015) 102-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.12.005
  16. H. Fu, C.G. Wilmot, Sequential logit dynamic travel demand model for hurricane evacuation, Transport. Res. Rec. 1882 (1) (2004) 19-26. https://doi.org/10.3141/1882-03
  17. E. Stern, Z. Sinuany-Stern, A behavioural-based simulation model for urban evacuation, Pap. Reg. Sci. 66 (1) (1989) 87-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5597.1989.tb01173.x
  18. S. Liu, P. Murray-Tuite, L. Schweitzer, Analysis of child pick-up during daily routines and for daytime no-notice evacuations, Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 46 (1) (2012) 48-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2011.09.003
  19. J. Lee, et al., The estimated evacuation time for the emergency planning zone of the Kori nuclear site, with a focus on the precautionary action zone, J. Radiat. Protect. Res. 41 (3) (2016) 196-205. https://doi.org/10.14407/jrpr.2016.41.3.196
  20. S. Park, S. Sohn, M. Jae, Cohort-based Evacuation Time Estimation Using TSISCORSIM, Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 2020.
  21. X. Chen, F.B. Zhan, Agent-based modelling and simulation of urban evacuation: relative effectiveness of simultaneous and staged evacuation strategies, J. Oper. Res. Soc. 59 (1) (2008) 25-33. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602321
  22. M.K. Lindell, C.S. Prater, Critical behavioral assumptions in evacuation time estimate analysis for private vehicles: examples from hurricane research and planning, J. Urban Plann. Dev. 133 (1) (2007) 18-29. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2007)133:1(18)
  23. N.E. Lownes, R.B. Machemehl, Sensitivity of simulated capacity to modification of VISSIM driver behavior parameters, Transport. Res. Rec. 1988 (1) (2006) 102-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198106198800113
  24. A.J. Pel, S.P. Hoogendoorn, M.C. Bliemer, Evacuation modeling including traveler information and compliance behavior, Procedia Eng. 3 (2010) 101-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2010.07.011
  25. D. Helbing, I. Farkas, T. Vicsek, Simulating dynamical features of escape panic, Nature 407 (6803) (2000) 487. https://doi.org/10.1038/35035023
  26. W. Yin, et al., An agent-based modeling system for travel demand simulation for hurricane evacuation, Transport. Res. C Emerg. Technol. 42 (2014) 44-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2014.02.015
  27. J.P. van der Gun, A.J. Pel, B. van Arem, A general activity-based methodology for simulating multimodal transportation networks during emergencies, Eur. J. Transport Infrastruct. Res. 16 (3) (2016).
  28. P.M. Murray-Tuite, H.S. Mahmassani, Model of household trip-chain sequencing in emergency evacuation, Transport. Res. Rec. 1831 (1) (2003) 21-29. https://doi.org/10.3141/1831-03
  29. T. Schwanen, D. Ettema, Coping with unreliable transportation when collecting children: examining parents' behavior with cumulative prospect theory, Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 43 (5) (2009) 511-525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2009.01.002
  30. C.R. Bhat, S.K. Singh, A comprehensive daily activity-travel generation model system for workers, Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 34 (1) (2000) 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(98)00037-8
  31. T.E. Drabek, Human System Responses to Disaster: an Inventory of Sociological Findings, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
  32. IAEA, Power Reactor Information System, 2018 [cited 2020 01.02]; Available from, https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.aspx?current=KR.
  33. Greenpeace, It Is a Dangerous Decision to Cancel the Construction Permit of Shin-Kori Units 5 and 6, Greenpeace, 2016.
  34. R.B. Goldblatt, K. Weinisch, Evacuation Planning, Human Factors, and Traffic Engineering: Developing Systems for Training and Effective Response, TR news, 2005, 238.
  35. P. Hidas, A functional evaluation of the AIMSUN, PARAMICS and VISSIM microsimulation models, Road Transp. Res. 14 (4) (2005) 45.
  36. PTV, A., PTV Vissim 10 User Manual. PTV AG, Karlsruhe, Germany, 2018.
  37. R. Fries, Y. Qi, S. Leight, How Many Times Should I Run the Model? Performance Measure Specific Findings from VISSIM Models in Missouri, 2017.
  38. Ulsan Metropolitan Office of Education, Current Status of Seosaeng Elementary School, 2018. Available from, https://school.use.go.kr/seosaeng-e/M010205/.
  39. Ulsan Metropolitan Office of Education, Current Status of Seosaeng Middle School, 2018. Available from, https://school.use.go.kr/seosaeng-m/M010208/.
  40. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, in NUREG/CR-7002/SAND2010-0016P, 2011.