J. JSNDS 34-3 213-2232015 県別 市町村別の人身雪害リスクの比較 上村靖司 1 高田和輝 2 関健太 2 A risk comparison of snow-related accidents on each prefecture or municipalities Seiji KAMIMURA 1, Kazuki TAKADA 2 and Kenta SEKI 2 Abstract Regional risk levels of snow-related injury in four prefectures, Aomori, Akita, Yamagata, and Niigata, were examined using the case data for seven winters, from to. The highest regional total risk of snow-related injury was found in Niigata, while the highest personal injury risk was found in Yamagata and Akita. All municipalities in each prefecture were sorted by personal injury risk in descending order, and the cumulative risk curves were plotted for each prefecture. Then each prefecture was separated into four regions according to the gradient of the cumulative risk curves, and it was founded that more than. million people were exposed to very serious risk, and. million people live in the serious risk areas of the four prefectures. Snow-related personal fatality risk was. to. times larger than that for industrial accidents, and FAFR, which is a risk index per labor hour, of snow-related injury reached to times greater than that of industrial accidents. Assuming that the acceptable risk level is equal to the injury risk per labor hour of industrial accidents, most municipalities in the four prefectures were found to have unacceptable risk levels. Key words: snow-related injury, risk analysis, regression analysis, partial correlation Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Nagaoka University of Technology Graduate School of Engineering Nagaoka University of Technology
1. はじめに 図 1 図 2 図 3 図 1 2. リスク指標の定義と見積もり R / r / 図 2 図 3
J. JSNDS 34-32015 / n N T P Rr n f R f r f n f. /. / /. / / FAFRFatal Accident Frequency Rate FAFR L h FAFR. h AFRAccident Frequency Rate 3. リスク水準の分析結果 3. 1 リスク水準ごとの市町村分類 表 1 R r r f. / /. / /
r f.. / / r f 表 1 TF P n,n f R,R f r,r f................... TFm P nr / r / / f 図 4 r 図 4 図 4
J. JSNDS 34-32015 ABC D 表 2 A 表 2 P n r A. 64.8 B.. C.. D. A. 30.5 B.. C.. A. 32.4 B.. C.. D. A. 40.2 B.. C.. D. A. 36.4 B.. C.. D. ABCD P nr / / 図 5
A B 図 5 A D GIS A r =. / / 表 4 表 3 n, n f P R, R f r, r f,.,...,.,...,.,...,.,...,.,... P nr / r / / f 3. 2 許容リスク水準の検討 表 3 r =. / / 図 6 表 4 図 6 P n,n f R,R f r,r f. 64.8.. 31.6....... 40.2.. 37.4. P nr / r / /
J. JSNDS 34-32015.. 表 1 3. 3 FAFR による労働災害との比較 FAFR. m TF. m FAFR 表 5 r f 表 3 r f. / / r f. / / r f 表 3 r f.. FAFR. FAFR 表 5 r f FAFR r f FAFR....... 0.93. 36.3...... r f / / FAFR: h FAFR FAFR 表 5 r 図 7 r =. 表 2A AFR AFR. 図 8 図 7 r. m AFR. 表 2A, B, C
図 7 r 4. 自然要因と各種社会要因との相関分析 r 表 6 r
J. JSNDS 34-32015 図 8 AFR 表 6 N N N N.... 0.592. 0.580 0.857. 0.343.. 0.560 0.413... 0.344.. 0.542 0.389...... -0.374....... -0.427... 0.431 0.484.. 0.479 0.425. -0.394.... 0.387... -0.365-0.410.. -0.654-0.505. 0.619.... -0.620-0.413......... 0.361 表 6
r. 5. まとめ R r r A B r f.. FAFR AFR r. 謝辞 参考文献 vol.no.pp.-
J. JSNDS 34-32015 Vol.- Vol. No.pp.- pp- HP http://www.mhlw.go.jp/bunya/roudoukijun/ anzeneisei/rousai-hassei/ http://www.jil.go.jp/kokunai/statistics/ databook///p_-.pdf 要 旨..