Development of the model of natural emergencies in decision support system

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2015.37801

Keywords:

emergencies, territorial system, emergency contour spread, approximate contour borders, emergency source, geotaxon, cell

Abstract

In a modern anti-emergency DSS the required performance can be achieved using a plausible formal emergency model with the approximate nature of the undermined contour borders, which will significantly reduce the requirements for propagation model accuracy without substantial simplify it and without loss of clarity and justification for the decision-maker.

The formal emergency model is based on a territorial system resulting from the space (area) decomposition for a finite set of non-overlapping homogeneous regions (geotaxons) and subsequent sampling grid cells of equal size, which allows us to consider the dynamics of emergency spread discretely at the level of individual cells.

The emergency model includes the territorial system and the set of independent point sources, defined at the cells level of the territorial system, each of which forms a breeding ground for emergencies. The dynamics of emergency spread is simulated as the undermined contour borders motion in time represented with the approximate boundary region set using the rough set methodology.

Experimentally proved that the proposed emergency model provides acceptable performance in terms of DSS accuracy and compute speed at the sampling terrain cells with sizes ranging from 8 to 14 m.

Author Biographies

Марина Витальевна Жарикова, Kherson National Technical University Berislav Road, 24, Kherson, Ukraine, 73008

Associate professor, Candidate of technical science

Information Technology Department

Владимир Григорьевич Шерстюк, Kherson National Technical University Berislav Road, 24, Kherson, Ukraine, 73008

Professor, Doctor of Technical Sciences

Information Technology Department

References

  1. Miller, C., Ager, A. A. (2013). A review of recent advances in risk analysis for wildfire management. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 22 (1), 1–14. doi: 10.1071/wf11114
  2. Loboda, T. V., Csiszar, I. A. (2007). Assessing the risk of ignition in the russian far east within a modeling framework of fire threat. Ecological Applications, 17 (3), 791–805. doi: 10.1890/05-1476
  3. Tolhurst, K., Shields, B., Chong, D. (2008). Phoenix: development and application of a bushfire risk management tool. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 23 (4), 47–54.
  4. Martinez, J., Vega-Garcia, C., Chuvieco, E. (2009). Human-caused wildfire risk rating for prevention planning in Spain. Journal of Environmental Management, 90 (2), 1241–1252. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.07.005
  5. Atkinson, D., Chladil, M., Janssen, V., Lucieer, A. (2010). Implementation of quantitative bushfire risk analysis in a GIS environment. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 19 (5), 649–658. doi: 10.1071/wf08185
  6. Chuvieco, E., Aguadoa, I., Yebraa, M., Nietoa, H. et. al. (2010). Development of a framework for fire risk assessment using remote sensing and geographic information system technologies. Ecological Modelling, 221 (1), 46–58. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.11.017
  7. Prestemon, J. P., Pye, J. M., Butry, D. T., Holmes, T. P., Mercer, D. E. (2002). Understanding broadscale wildfire risks in a human-dominated landscape. Forest Science, 48, 685–693.
  8. Preisler, H., Brillinger, D. R., Burgan, E., Benoit, J. W. (2004). Probability based models for estimating wildfire risk. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 13, 133–142.
  9. Genton, M., Butry, D. T., Gumpertz, M. L., Prestemon, J. P. (2006). Spatiotemporal analysis of wildfire ignitions in the St. Johns River Water Management District, Florida. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 15 (1), 87–97. doi: 10.1071/wf04034
  10. Baranovskiy, N., Zharikova, M. (2014). A web-oriented geoinformation system for forest fire danger prediction in typical forests of the Ukraine. Thematic cartography for the society. Lecture notes in geoinformation and cartography, Springer, 13–22. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-08180-9_2
  11. Lee, J. S. W., Braun, W. J., Jones, B. L., Woolford, D. G., Mike, B. (2010). Forest fire risk assessment: an illustrative example from Ontario, Canada. J Journal of Probability and Statistics, 1–26. doi: 10.1155/2010/823018
  12. Zadeh, L. (2002). From computing with numbers to computing with words – from manipulation of measurements to manipulation of perceptions. Journal of Applied Math. and Computer Science, 12 (3), 307–324.
  13. Pawlak, Z., Jerzy, W., Slowinski, R., Ziarko, W. (1995). Rough Sets. Comm. of ACM, 38 (11), 88–95.
  14. Pawlak, Z. (1997). Vagueness – a Rough Set View. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 106–117. doi: 10.1007/3-540-63246-8_7
  15. Ager, A. A. (2007). Modeling wildfire risk to northern spotted owl. Forest Ecology and Management, 246 (1), 45–56. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.03.070
  16. Gelfand, I. M. (1998). Lektsii po lineynoy algebre. Dobrosvet, 320.
  17. Marchenko, P. E. (2010) Geoinformatsionnyie modeli i metodyi integralnoy otsenki prirodno-tehnogennoy opasnosti territorialnyih sistem. Nalchik, 324.
  18. Grab, M. V. (2004) Modeli, metodyi i algoritmyi rasprostraneniya lesnyih pozharov. Kharkov, 230.

Published

2015-02-27

How to Cite

Жарикова, М. В., & Шерстюк, В. Г. (2015). Development of the model of natural emergencies in decision support system. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 1(4(73), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2015.37801

Issue

Section

Mathematics and Cybernetics - applied aspects