IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i19p14229-d1248093.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Quantitative Approach of Measuring Sustainability Risk in Pipeline Infrastructure Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Labiba Noshin Asha

    (Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58102, USA)

  • Ying Huang

    (Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58102, USA)

  • Nita Yodo

    (Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58102, USA)

  • Haitao Liao

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA)

Abstract

The secure and dependable functioning of pipeline infrastructure systems is pivotal for transporting vital energy resources during this transition era towards a more sustainable energy future. This paper presents a novel quantitative approach for assessing sustainability risk in pipeline infrastructure systems and provides insights for holistic sustainability design in pipeline operations. The proposed methodology introduces a comprehensive framework for quantifying sustainability risk by integrating probabilities of failure and cumulative consequences from social, environmental, and economic dimensions that impact pipeline integrity. Real-world pipeline incident data were employed to identify the main causes of pipeline incidents like corrosion failure, equipment malfunction, and excavation damage. The consequences arising from these incidents are categorized to measure the cumulative consequences of sustainability risk. By quantifying sustainability risk, operators of pipeline infrastructure systems can strategically mitigate and manage potential disruptions affecting long-term sustainability incentives. In doing so, the proposed approach significantly bolsters the vital role of pipeline infrastructure systems in fostering sustainable energy transportation, yielding substantial benefits for global communities and economies.

Suggested Citation

  • Labiba Noshin Asha & Ying Huang & Nita Yodo & Haitao Liao, 2023. "A Quantitative Approach of Measuring Sustainability Risk in Pipeline Infrastructure Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-17, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:19:p:14229-:d:1248093
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/19/14229/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/19/14229/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrzej Rusin & Katarzyna Stolecka-Antczak & Krzysztof Kapusta & Krzysztof Rogoziński & Krzysztof Rusin, 2021. "Analysis of the Effects of Failure of a Gas Pipeline Caused by a Mechanical Damage," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-21, November.
    2. Yasir Mahmood & Tanzina Afrin & Ying Huang & Nita Yodo, 2023. "Sustainable Development for Oil and Gas Infrastructure from Risk, Reliability, and Resilience Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-22, March.
    3. Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2008. "The costs of failure: A preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, 1907-2007," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 1802-1820, May.
    4. Liang, Weikun & Lin, Shunjiang & Liu, Mingbo & Sheng, Xuan & Pan, Yue & Liu, Yun, 2023. "Risk assessment for cascading failures in regional integrated energy system considering the pipeline dynamics," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 270(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eliana Judith Yazo-Cabuya & Asier Ibeas & Jorge Aurelio Herrera-Cuartas, 2024. "Integrating Sustainability into Risk Management through Analytical Network Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-28, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Siler-Evans, Kyle & Hanson, Alex & Sunday, Cecily & Leonard, Nathan & Tumminello, Michele, 2014. "Analysis of pipeline accidents in the United States from 1968 to 2009," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 257-269.
    2. Kumar, Yogesh & Ringenberg, Jordan & Depuru, Soma Shekara & Devabhaktuni, Vijay K. & Lee, Jin Woo & Nikolaidis, Efstratios & Andersen, Brett & Afjeh, Abdollah, 2016. "Wind energy: Trends and enabling technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 209-224.
    3. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Walter, Götz, 2018. "Major hydropower states, sustainable development, and energy security: Insights from a preliminary cross-comparative assessment," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 1074-1082.
    4. Matthias Beck, 2016. "The Risk Implications of Globalisation: An Exploratory Analysis of 105 Major Industrial Incidents (1971–2010)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-21, March.
    5. Lina Escobar Rangel & François Lévêque, 2012. "How did Fukushima-Daiichi core meltdown change the probability of nuclear accidents?," Working Papers hal-00740684, HAL.
    6. Scholtens, Bert & Boersen, Arieke, 2011. "Stocks and energy shocks: The impact of energy accidents on stock market value," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 1698-1702.
    7. Bizet, Romain & Bonev, Petyo & Leveque, Francois, 2020. "The effect of local monitoring on nuclear safety and compliance: Evidence from France," Economics Working Paper Series 2014, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    8. Schaeffer, Roberto & Borba, Bruno S.M.C. & Rathmann, Régis & Szklo, Alexandre & Castelo Branco, David A., 2012. "Dow Jones sustainability index transmission to oil stock market returns: A GARCH approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 933-943.
    9. Peter M. Schwarz & Joseph A. Cochran, 2013. "Renaissance Or Requiem: Is Nuclear Energy Cost Effective In A Post-Fukushima World?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(4), pages 691-707, October.
    10. Flávia de Souza Costa Neves Cavazotte & Cristiano José Pereira Duarte & Anna Maria Calvão Gobbo, 2013. "Authentic leader, safe work: the influence of leadership on safety performance," Brazilian Business Review, Fucape Business School, vol. 10(2), pages 95-119, June.
    11. Ryan P. Scott & Tyler A. Scott & Robert A. Greer, 2022. "Who owns the pipes? Utility ownership, infrastructure conditions, and methane emissions in United States natural gas distribution," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(2), pages 170-198, March.
    12. Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2009. "Energy policy and cooperation in Southeast Asia: The history, challenges, and implications of the trans-ASEAN gas pipeline (TAGP) network," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2356-2367, June.
    13. Mendes, Pietro A.S. & Hall, Jeremy & Matos, Stelvia & Silvestre, Bruno, 2014. "Reforming Brazil׳s offshore oil and gas safety regulatory framework: Lessons from Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 443-453.
    14. Lars Lindholt & Solveig Glomsrød, 2017. "Phasing out coal and phasing in renewables – good or bad news for arctic gas producers?," Discussion Papers 856, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    15. Danzer, Alexander M. & Danzer, Natalia, 2016. "The long-run consequences of Chernobyl: Evidence on subjective well-being, mental health and welfare," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 47-60.
    16. Huhtala, Anni & Remes, Piia, 2017. "Quantifying the social costs of nuclear energy: Perceived risk of accident at nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 320-331.
    17. Hofert Marius & Wüthrich Mario V., 2012. "Statistical Review of Nuclear Power Accidents," Asia-Pacific Journal of Risk and Insurance, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-20, December.
    18. Marco Cinelli & Matteo Spada & Miłosz Kadziński & Grzegorz Miebs & Peter Burgherr, 2019. "Advancing Hazard Assessment of Energy Accidents in the Natural Gas Sector with Rough Set Theory and Decision Rules," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-17, November.
    19. Lindholt, Lars & Glomsrød, Solveig, 2018. "Phasing out coal and phasing in renewables – Good or bad news for arctic gas producers?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 1-11.
    20. Huhtala, Anni & Remes, Piia, 2016. "Dimming Hopes for Nuclear Power: Quantifying the Social Costs of Perceptions of Risks," Working Papers 57, VATT Institute for Economic Research.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:19:p:14229-:d:1248093. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.