Quantitative risk assessment for static and mobile road users: methodology and application at A82 Glen Coe, Scotland

IF 3.8 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Geoenvironmental Disasters Pub Date : 2024-02-26 DOI:10.1186/s40677-024-00274-9

M. G. Winter, T. Waaser, G. Fiddes

{"title":"Quantitative risk assessment for static and mobile road users: methodology and application at A82 Glen Coe, Scotland","authors":"M. G. Winter, T. Waaser, G. Fiddes","doi":"10.1186/s40677-024-00274-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In August 2004 a series of debris flows caused significant disruption to the Scottish (strategic) Trunk Road Network. The subsequent Scottish Road Network Landslides Study identified a number of sites considered to be at highest risk. Some of these sites have been the subject of formal quantitative assessment of the risk from debris flow to mobile road users in vehicles. The A82 in Glen Coe has the added complication that two car parks have developed on debris fans exposing significant numbers of people to the risk while, they are essentially static and largely outside their vehicles. The risk to road users is determined using a previously developed probabilistic methodology for mobile road users (mobile elements at risk) and a new and related methodology developed for static road users (static elements at risk) is described and applied. Within the latter, an entirely new metric of Annual Average Daily Visits is used to allow the temporal component of the probability of a landslide impacting a person to be determined given the occurrence of an event. While Personal Individual Risk is at an acceptable level, including for frequent users, the risk presented to society as a whole presents a rather different picture; this is largely due to the number of visitors. The results assess the overall, societal risk for mobile elements at risk as As Low As reasonably Practicable, being at a similar level to other sites, albeit with a higher risk associated with higher numbers of fatalities. The results for the static elements at risk on the other hand suggest that the risks are classified as Unacceptable for higher numbers of fatalities. The assessment of the total societal risk, for mobile and static elements at risk, at the A82 Glen Coe suggests As Low As Reasonably Practicable for low numbers of fatalities but classify as Unacceptable for higher numbers of fatalities (around 20 to 250).","PeriodicalId":37025,"journal":{"name":"Geoenvironmental Disasters","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geoenvironmental Disasters","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40677-024-00274-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

In August 2004 a series of debris flows caused significant disruption to the Scottish (strategic) Trunk Road Network. The subsequent Scottish Road Network Landslides Study identified a number of sites considered to be at highest risk. Some of these sites have been the subject of formal quantitative assessment of the risk from debris flow to mobile road users in vehicles. The A82 in Glen Coe has the added complication that two car parks have developed on debris fans exposing significant numbers of people to the risk while, they are essentially static and largely outside their vehicles. The risk to road users is determined using a previously developed probabilistic methodology for mobile road users (mobile elements at risk) and a new and related methodology developed for static road users (static elements at risk) is described and applied. Within the latter, an entirely new metric of Annual Average Daily Visits is used to allow the temporal component of the probability of a landslide impacting a person to be determined given the occurrence of an event. While Personal Individual Risk is at an acceptable level, including for frequent users, the risk presented to society as a whole presents a rather different picture; this is largely due to the number of visitors. The results assess the overall, societal risk for mobile elements at risk as As Low As reasonably Practicable, being at a similar level to other sites, albeit with a higher risk associated with higher numbers of fatalities. The results for the static elements at risk on the other hand suggest that the risks are classified as Unacceptable for higher numbers of fatalities. The assessment of the total societal risk, for mobile and static elements at risk, at the A82 Glen Coe suggests As Low As Reasonably Practicable for low numbers of fatalities but classify as Unacceptable for higher numbers of fatalities (around 20 to 250).

查看原文本刊更多论文

针对静态和移动道路使用者的定量风险评估：方法论及在苏格兰 A82 Glen Coe 的应用

2004 年 8 月，一系列泥石流对苏格兰（战略）干线公路网造成了严重破坏。随后进行的苏格兰公路网山体滑坡研究确定了一些被认为风险最高的地点。其中一些地点已对泥石流对车辆移动道路使用者造成的风险进行了正式的定量评估。Glen Coe 的 A82 公路还有一个额外的复杂因素，那就是两个停车场都建在碎屑流上，这使得大量人员面临风险，而他们基本上是静止的，大部分都在车外。在确定道路使用者所面临的风险时，使用了之前针对移动道路使用者开发的概率方法（移动风险要素），并描述和应用了针对静态道路使用者开发的新的相关方法（静态风险要素）。在后者中，使用了一个全新的指标--年平均日访问量，以便在事件发生时确定滑坡影响个人概率的时间部分。虽然个人风险处于可接受的水平，包括经常使用者，但整个社会面临的风险却截然不同；这主要是由于游客数量造成的。根据评估结果，处于风险中的移动元素的整体社会风险为 "在合理可行的范围内尽可能低"，与其他遗址的风险水平相似，尽管与较高的死亡人数相关的风险较高。另一方面，对存在风险的静态元素的评估结果表明，在死亡人数较高的情况下，其风险被归类为不可接受。对 A82 格伦-科伊公路（A82 Glen Coe）的移动和静态风险要素进行的社会总风险评估表明，如果死亡人数较低，则风险为 "合理可行的低风险"，但如果死亡人数较高（约 20 至 250 人），则风险为 "不可接受"。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Geoenvironmental Disasters Social Sciences-Geography, Planning and Development

CiteScore

8.90

自引率

6.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Geoenvironmental Disasters is an international journal with a focus on multi-disciplinary applied and fundamental research and the effects and impacts on infrastructure, society and the environment of geoenvironmental disasters triggered by various types of geo-hazards (e.g. earthquakes, volcanic activity, landslides, tsunamis, intensive erosion and hydro-meteorological events). The integrated study of Geoenvironmental Disasters is an emerging and composite field of research interfacing with areas traditionally within civil engineering, earth sciences, atmospheric sciences and the life sciences. It centers on the interactions within and between the Earth''s ground, air and water environments, all of which are affected by climate, geological, morphological and anthropological processes; and biological and ecological cycles. Disasters are dynamic forces which can change the Earth pervasively, rapidly, or abruptly, and which can generate lasting effects on the natural and built environments. The journal publishes research papers, case studies and quick reports of recent geoenvironmental disasters, review papers and technical reports of various geoenvironmental disaster-related case studies. The focus on case studies and quick reports of recent geoenvironmental disasters helps to advance the practical understanding of geoenvironmental disasters and to inform future research priorities; they are a major component of the journal. The journal aims for the rapid publication of research papers at a high scientific level. The journal welcomes proposals for special issues reflecting the trends in geoenvironmental disaster reduction and monothematic issues. Researchers and practitioners are encouraged to submit original, unpublished contributions.