# Study on Measuring and Evaluating the Synergy Effect of Regional Coal Mine Emergency Management in China Based on the Composite System Synergy Model

Authors: Yu Hao; Chaolun Sun; Jianping Wei; Sasa Gu
Journal: Geofluids
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

Emergency management of coal mines requires enhanced synergy among departments, institutions, and enterprises, which means overall efficiency in management. In this study, a regional coal mine emergency (CME) management synergy system was established; the synergy theory was adopted to construct the order parameter index system of the regional CME management synergy subsystems. Moreover, the order degrees and synergistic degrees of the regional CME management synergy subsystems in Henan Province, China, in the period 2015-2019 were quantitatively measured and analyzed using the composite system synergy model. The results show that the order degrees of regional CME management synergy subsystems and the synergistic degree of the composite system increase overall during the inspection period. With the gradual formation of the regional CME management synergy mechanism, this period has witnessed a steady improvement in both the synergy value and the considerable synergistic effect.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Synergistic management is an effective way to build a strong force for the prevention and control of emergencies. In order to improve the overall managerial and cost efficiency of coal mine emergency (CME) management, synergy among departments, institutions, and enterprises is necessary. Therefore, the purpose of establishing a regional CME synergy mechanism is to achieve and promote synergistic effects among the subjects within the system. For a regional CME management system to become synergistic, it usually needs to experience a series of evolution including continuous diagnosis, adjustment, and evaluation of the original system. Before any improvement measure is made, an evaluation of the synergy status of the concerned regional CME management synergy system must be conducted, because it serves both as an evaluation of past systems and as the basis for improving or constructing new emergency synergy systems. Therefore, a scientific evaluation index system should be established to evaluate the system synergy, identify the weak points in the system, and take targeted measures for them. In this way, the synergy system and level of synergy can be improved as a whole, thus changing the system behavior and achieving better overall synergistic effects.


## 2. Current Situation of Emergency Management Synergy

The study on synergy can trace back to 1965; Igor Ansoff, a well-known American professor of strategic management, first introduced the concept of “synergy” in his paper “Corporate strategy: an analytic approach to business policy for growth and expansion” [1–3]. He pointed out that mutual promotion and mutual benefit can be achieved among multiple subjects on the basis of resource sharing. In 1971, a German physicist named Hermann Haken continued on that basis to propose a systematic theory, which is now known as the synergy theory [4]. With the development of society, the concept of synergy has been widely used in various research fields beyond physics. Although different scholars have different approaches and focuses on synergy research, a common understanding has been reached about the meaning of synergy, i.e., “1+1>2.” Moreover, most of the scholars have recognized the significant value of synergy and have introduced a synergistic perspective to analyzing problems in their respective fields.In addition to emphasizing prevention and preparedness, another obvious feature of the current academic research on emergency management theory is to focus on strengthening emergency synergy and cooperation. In recent years, foreign scholars’ research on synergistic aspects of emergency management mainly focuses on emergency synergy cases, emergency synergy influencing factors, and emergency synergy roles.On the role of emergency synergy, related scholars have studied the emergency synergistic response working mechanism from the perspective of the subject and pointed out the importance of achieving effective synergy among emergency subjects; for example, McMaster and Baber, Salama et al., Curnin et al. [5–7], and others explored the importance of emergency synergy among multiple departments in emergencies. Evers et al. viewed synergy as a collaborative approach [8]; Te Brake et al. argue that efficient allocation of emergency resources and resource interoperability are key factors for the synergy of emergency response teams [9]; Hemandez and Serrano propose that an optimized collaborative knowledge management model can be used to screen a large amount of raw information in the emergency management process, leading to an improved level of emergency response [10].In terms of emergency synergy influencing factors, some scholars have studied the role of information, organizational structure, emergency resources, and other factors in emergency synergy, respectively. For example, Henstra proposed the concept of regional emergency management procedures as elements to provide a method for the evaluation of emergency management procedures. Henstra argued that adequate emergency funding can meet the needs and expectations of the public and ensure the continuity and depth of emergency cooperation among local governments [11].For example, McEntire analyzed the tornado emergency in Fort Worth, Texas, and concluded that the amount of emergency information (lack or excess), the lack of emergency equipment, the lack of communication among new emergency personnel, organizational authority conflicts, and language barriers affect the efficiency of emergency response. The efficiency of emergency synergy is affected by the lack of communication among emergency personnel, conflicts in organizational competencies, and language barriers [12–14], arguing that organizational cooperation is a fundamental guarantee of an effective response to regional emergencies. Calixto and Larouvere, through their analysis of the Hurricane Katrina emergency, suggested factors that affect the efficiency of emergency synergy: differences in emergency norms and standards, differences in the phases of public emergency response, and relationships formed by organizations in advance [15].In the research of emergency synergy in coal mines, scholars such as Ikeda et al. [16] studied the use of advanced communication technology to support emergency rescue and proposed an emergency rescue model; Yeo and Comfort concluded that the collaborative network of emergency organizations showed a high degree of fragmentation and weak interconnection between horizontal and vertical [17]; Schipper et al. studied the emergency response collaborative action interaction in emergency response, and information communication between different subjects was studied [18]; Kinilakodi and Grayson studied the prevention and reduction of coal mine accidents by introducing a reliability approach to enhance the collaborative management of coal mine safety emergencies [19].An analysis of the past researches reveals that both China and the international community are in a primary stage of exploring the emergency management synergy mechanism, where few fruits have been yielded, especially those in the CME management area. In this research, the synergy theory was employed to study the degree of synergy in the regional CME management synergy system and analyze its composition. Besides, an order parameter index system of the regional CME management synergy subsystems was constructed, and the composite system synergy model was introduced for the quantitative measurement and empirical evaluation of the order degrees and synergy level of the regional CME management synergy subsystems in Henan Province, China. Based on research results, relevant suggestions were made.


## 3. Composition of Regional CME Management Synergy System

At present, the overall CME management system in China is divided into several sections according to the administrative division. Regional CME management synergy is not about simply superimposing various synergistic subsystems or elements of different regions. Instead, it involves using certain synergistic mechanisms to generate synergistic effects among various subsystems or elements in meeting emergencies, thus achieving the goal of controlling and optimizing the distribution of information, capabilities, and materials. According to the current division criterion of coal mines in China, regional CME management synergy is generally divided into three levels: province, municipality, and mining areas. Provincial emergency management synergy plans and uses limited emergency resources on an interprovincial basis to realize maximum effectiveness. Municipal synergy refines and implements provincial decisions at the municipal level. Mining area synergy refers to the integration of emergency business processes among coal mining enterprises, which is aimed at removing obstacles among various processes and facilitating smoother business docking. In dealing with regional coal mine emergencies, the emergency synergy system is at work in four stages: emergency recovery, preparation, prevention, and response. At the abovementioned three levels, the CME synergy management system is able to form a more orderly structure in function, space, and time dimensions, thus contributing to the effective improvement of CME management capabilities (Figure1).Figure 1
Mechanism of regional CME management synergy.Subjects within a regional CME management synergy system mainly include the mine itself, government institutions, regional coal mine cooperation bodies, and social service institutions. Each synergistic subject has multiple subsystems, such as resource, decision, organization, and process subsystems. Meanwhile, they interact with each other in the regional CME management synergy process to induce subsystem behavior changes and internal synergy. Moreover, the synergistic subjects also affect each other through the exchange of material, information, and energy and produce synergistic effects under a synergistic mechanism, so that the system can develop in an orderly manner. Ultimately, the regional CME management synergy system can achieve an overall synergistic effect. That is, the elements in the system exchange energy and materials with the outside world through interaction, thus forming an overall orderly structure with respect to function, space, and time, which then evolves into a new orderly state. Therefore, for the regional CME management synergy system, in response to coal mine emergencies, all subjects should enhance mutual collaboration and communication with each other through organization systems, emergency response plans, laws, regulations, etc. This can improve the overall order level of the emergency synergy system that is composed of relevant subsystems, conduce to a more efficient and coordinated response to coal mine emergencies, and finally reduce casualties and property damage.


## 4. Establishment of Assessment Model

### 4.1. Order Degree Model for Subsystems

Based on the synergistic evaluation method, the regional CME management synergy system in this study is expressed asM=M1,M2,M3,⋯,Mn, where Mj is the jth subsystem of system M, j=1,2,⋯,n, and Mj=Mj1,Mj2,Mj3,⋯,Mjn, which means that Mj is composed of several order parameters or several subelements. As mentioned in the previous analysis, the regional CME management synergy system consists of four main subsystems, namely, resource, organization, decision, and process subsystems. Hence, M=M1,M2,M3,⋯,Mn (n≤4).Set the order parameter of subsystemMj as Xj=xj1,xj2,⋯,xji, i∈1,n. “xj1,xj2,⋯,xji” are parameters for describing the operating status of subsystems, and n≥1. xji and βji are the stability caps and collars of subsystems, respectively, αji≤xji≤βji. Considering the difference in the properties of the order parameter xj, different order degree evaluation methods are adopted. Specifically, when the order degree of the subsystem changes in the same direction as the value of the order parameter xj, the order parameter xj is a positive indicator. In this case, the order degree of the component parameter xji of the order parameter xj in the regional CME management synergy subsystem Mj is
(1)φjxji=xji−αjiβji−xji.When the order degree of the subsystem changes in the opposite direction to the value of the order parameterxj, the order parameter xj is a negative indicator. In that case, the order degree of the component parameter xji of the order parameter xji in the regional CME management synergy subsystem Mj is
(2)φjxji=βji−xjiβji−αji.The order degreeφj of the order parameter xj lies in the range of 0,1. φj reflects the influence of the component parameter xji of the order parameter xj on the order degree of the subsystem. The larger the value of φj, the greater the contribution of xji to the order degree of the subsystem. The contribution of xji to the overall order degree of the subsystem can be obtained by arithmetic averaging or geometric averaging, i.e., the order degree of the regional CME synergy subsystem (abbreviated as ODRCMESS) can be expressed as or
(3)ODRCMESS=φjxj=1n∑i=1nφjxjij=1,2,3,4(4)ODRCMESS=φjxj=∏i=1nn1nφjxjij=1,2,3,4.From Equations (3) and (4), it is known thatODRCMESS=φjxj∈0,1. The larger the value of ODRCMESS, the higher the order degree of the subsystem; the smaller the value of ODRCMESS, the lower the order degree of the subsystem. When ODRCMESS=φjxj=0, the subsystem Mj has the lowest order degree; when ODRCMESS=φjxj=1, the subsystem Mj has the highest order degree.


### 4.2. Composite System Synergistic Degree Model

The synergistic degree of the regional CME composite synergy system is measured based on the dynamic remeasurement of the subsystems’ order degree. Assuming that a subsystem’s order degreeDRCMESS=φj0x,j=1,2,3,4, at the initial time t0 and that the subsystem’s order degree DRCMESS=φjk,j=1,2,3,4, at a certain time tk, then the synergy of regional coal mine emergency management coordination subsystem (abbreviated as SRCMEMCS) for that time period can be expressed as or
(5)SRCMEMCS=θ1/4∑i=14φjkxj−φj0xj(6)SRCMEMCS=θ4∏i=14φjkxj−φj0xj,where
(7)θ=minφjkxj−φj0xjminφjkxj−φj0xjj=1,2,3,4.As can be seen from Equations (3), (5), and (6), the regional CME management synergy model can be used to characterize the changing trend of the regional CME management synergy system and the quantification of its synergistic degree in a certain period of time, while SRCMEMCS can be used to evaluate the overall synergistic degree of the regional CME synergy system in the time period t. The value of SRCMEMCS lies within the range of 0,1. The greater the value of SZMECS, the stronger the synergistic ability of the synergy system; the smaller the value, the weaker the synergy ability.When it comes to evaluating the synergistic degree of a composite system, this classifies SRCMEMCS into five levels by drawing from relevant practical experience in China and abroad and following the principle that a large number of evaluation data must conform to reasonable normal distribution (Table1).Table 1
Evaluation standard of SRCMEMCS.
Synergistic degree0<SRCMEMCS≤0.40.4<SRCMEMCS≤0.60.6<SRCMEMCS≤0.80.8<SRCMEMCS≤0.90.9<SRCMEMCS≤1Synergy levelNonsynergyMino nonsynergyBasic synergyGood synergyExcellent synergy


### 4.3. Establishment of Order Parameter System

The synergy effects of the regional CME management synergy system depend on the synergistic actions among subsystems. According to the synergy theory, order parameters are the main variables responsible for the structural and functional changes of the system, and they determine the process and direction of the system evolution. Hence, choosing correct order parameters is crucial [7, 8]. Based on analysis of the elements of the regional CME management synergy system and the review of relevant information and research results of related scholars, and by combining the Delphi method, this study compiled the order parameter system that can indicate the order degree of the regional CME management synergy subsystem (Table 2).Table 2
Synergistic degree evaluation index system of the regional CME management synergy system.
SubsystemOrder parameterIndexCodeTypeDecision-making subsystem (M1)Synergy among subjectsSynergy with government departmentsx11PositiveSynergy with coal mining enterprisesx12PositiveAgreement in decision-making among subjectsx13PositiveInformation synergyInformation convey qualityx14PositiveInformation convey speedx15PositiveDegree of information sharingx16PositiveOrganization subsystem (M2)Structure synergyStructure order degreex21PositiveDifferentiation among levelsx22NegativeSynergy among departmentsDepartmental management spanx23NegativeCross-departmental synergy levelx24PositiveAuthority synergyOccupational synergy levelx25PositiveCompleteness of emergency response agreement among organizationsx26PositiveRationality of emergent assignment of authority and responsibilityx27PositiveProcess subsystem (M3)Precaution synergyCompleteness of basic datax31PositiveDifference in criterions and standards among organizationsx32NegativeSafety check timesx33PositiveAccident predicting and warning capacityx34PositivePreparation synergyEmergency rescue crewx35PositiveMutual aid agreement in emergency rescuex36PositiveInterorganizational planning adaptabilityx37PositiveAverage annual trainings for emergency response personnelx38PositiveEmergency drilling timesx39PositiveResponse synergyEmergency rescue technologies and professional equipmentx310PositiveInvolvement of emergency expertsx311PositiveEmergency response speedx312PositiveEffectiveness of emergency equipment and facilitiesx313PositiveRecovery synergyReliability of medical servicesx314PositiveReliability of emergency telecommunicationx315PositiveAccident investigation and reportx316PositiveEffectiveness of recovery planx317PositiveResource subsystem (M4)Reservation synergyApplicability of emergency equipmentx41PositiveSufficiency of emergency supplyx42PositiveDistribution synergyComplementarity of different resourcesx43PositiveTimeliness of resource acquisitionx44Positive


### 4.4. Weight Assignment of Order Parameter Index

There are generally subjective and objective methods of assigning index weights, each of which has its own advantages and disadvantages. Considering the difficulty in collecting raw information by using the subjective assignment method and the influence of subjective factors, this paper adopts the entropy weighing method to calculate the weight of each index. The calculation steps are as follows.(1)
Calculate the weight of theith subject of the jth index:
(8)θji=xji∑i=1nxjii=1,2,3⋯,m,j=1,2,⋯,n(2)
Calculate the entropy value of thejth index:Ifej is the entropy value of the jth evaluating index, its calculation is as follows:
(9)ej=−1lnm∑i=1mθjixji,ej∈0,1(3)
Calculate the differentiation coefficient:(10)gj=1−ej(4)
Calculate the weight of thejth index:
(11)θji=gj∑j=1ngjAccording to the above equations, the weights of all indexes in Table2 are calculated step by step, and the results are shown in Table 3.Table 3
Regional coal mine emergency system synergistic degree evaluation index weights.
SubsystemWeightsOrder parameterWeightsIndexCodeWeightsDecision subsystem (M1)0.3Synergy among subjects0.54Synergy with government departmentsx110.31Synergy with coal mining enterprisesx120.28Agreement in decision-making among subjectsx130.41Information synergy0.46Information convey qualityx140.21Information convey speedx150.33Degree of information sharingx160.46Organization subsystem (M2)0.25Structure synergy0.37Structure order degreex210.45Differentiation among levelsx220.55Synergy among departments0.32Departmental management spanx230.42Cross-departmental synergy levelx240.58Authority synergy0.31Occupational synergy levelx250.38Completeness of emergency response agreement among organizationsx260.21Rationality of emergent assignment of authority and responsibilityx270.41Process subsystem (M3)0.31Precaution synergy0.21Completeness of basic datax310.18Difference in criterions and standards among organizationsx320.12Safety check timesx330.16Accident predicting and warning capacityx340.54Preparation synergy0.23Emergency rescue crewx350.25Mutual aid agreement in emergency rescuex360.22Interorganizational planning adaptabilityx370.20Average annual trainings for emergency response personnelx380.15Emergency drilling timesx390.18Response synergy0.42Emergency rescue technologies and professional equipmentx3100.22Involvement of emergency expertsx3110.16Emergency response speedx3120.21Effectiveness of emergency equipment and facilitiesx3130.41Recovery synergy0.14Reliability of medical servicesx3140.13Reliability of emergency telecommunicationx3150.14Accident investigation and reportx3160.32Effectiveness of recovery planx3170.41Resource subsystem (M4)0.14Reservation synergy0.46Applicability of emergency equipmentx410.44Sufficiency of emergency supplyx420.56Distribution synergy0.54Complementarity of different resourcesx430.38Timeliness of resource acquisitionx440.62


## 4.1. Order Degree Model for Subsystems

Based on the synergistic evaluation method, the regional CME management synergy system in this study is expressed asM=M1,M2,M3,⋯,Mn, where Mj is the jth subsystem of system M, j=1,2,⋯,n, and Mj=Mj1,Mj2,Mj3,⋯,Mjn, which means that Mj is composed of several order parameters or several subelements. As mentioned in the previous analysis, the regional CME management synergy system consists of four main subsystems, namely, resource, organization, decision, and process subsystems. Hence, M=M1,M2,M3,⋯,Mn (n≤4).Set the order parameter of subsystemMj as Xj=xj1,xj2,⋯,xji, i∈1,n. “xj1,xj2,⋯,xji” are parameters for describing the operating status of subsystems, and n≥1. xji and βji are the stability caps and collars of subsystems, respectively, αji≤xji≤βji. Considering the difference in the properties of the order parameter xj, different order degree evaluation methods are adopted. Specifically, when the order degree of the subsystem changes in the same direction as the value of the order parameter xj, the order parameter xj is a positive indicator. In this case, the order degree of the component parameter xji of the order parameter xj in the regional CME management synergy subsystem Mj is
(1)φjxji=xji−αjiβji−xji.When the order degree of the subsystem changes in the opposite direction to the value of the order parameterxj, the order parameter xj is a negative indicator. In that case, the order degree of the component parameter xji of the order parameter xji in the regional CME management synergy subsystem Mj is
(2)φjxji=βji−xjiβji−αji.The order degreeφj of the order parameter xj lies in the range of 0,1. φj reflects the influence of the component parameter xji of the order parameter xj on the order degree of the subsystem. The larger the value of φj, the greater the contribution of xji to the order degree of the subsystem. The contribution of xji to the overall order degree of the subsystem can be obtained by arithmetic averaging or geometric averaging, i.e., the order degree of the regional CME synergy subsystem (abbreviated as ODRCMESS) can be expressed as or
(3)ODRCMESS=φjxj=1n∑i=1nφjxjij=1,2,3,4(4)ODRCMESS=φjxj=∏i=1nn1nφjxjij=1,2,3,4.From Equations (3) and (4), it is known thatODRCMESS=φjxj∈0,1. The larger the value of ODRCMESS, the higher the order degree of the subsystem; the smaller the value of ODRCMESS, the lower the order degree of the subsystem. When ODRCMESS=φjxj=0, the subsystem Mj has the lowest order degree; when ODRCMESS=φjxj=1, the subsystem Mj has the highest order degree.


## 4.2. Composite System Synergistic Degree Model

The synergistic degree of the regional CME composite synergy system is measured based on the dynamic remeasurement of the subsystems’ order degree. Assuming that a subsystem’s order degreeDRCMESS=φj0x,j=1,2,3,4, at the initial time t0 and that the subsystem’s order degree DRCMESS=φjk,j=1,2,3,4, at a certain time tk, then the synergy of regional coal mine emergency management coordination subsystem (abbreviated as SRCMEMCS) for that time period can be expressed as or
(5)SRCMEMCS=θ1/4∑i=14φjkxj−φj0xj(6)SRCMEMCS=θ4∏i=14φjkxj−φj0xj,where
(7)θ=minφjkxj−φj0xjminφjkxj−φj0xjj=1,2,3,4.As can be seen from Equations (3), (5), and (6), the regional CME management synergy model can be used to characterize the changing trend of the regional CME management synergy system and the quantification of its synergistic degree in a certain period of time, while SRCMEMCS can be used to evaluate the overall synergistic degree of the regional CME synergy system in the time period t. The value of SRCMEMCS lies within the range of 0,1. The greater the value of SZMECS, the stronger the synergistic ability of the synergy system; the smaller the value, the weaker the synergy ability.When it comes to evaluating the synergistic degree of a composite system, this classifies SRCMEMCS into five levels by drawing from relevant practical experience in China and abroad and following the principle that a large number of evaluation data must conform to reasonable normal distribution (Table1).Table 1
Evaluation standard of SRCMEMCS.
Synergistic degree0<SRCMEMCS≤0.40.4<SRCMEMCS≤0.60.6<SRCMEMCS≤0.80.8<SRCMEMCS≤0.90.9<SRCMEMCS≤1Synergy levelNonsynergyMino nonsynergyBasic synergyGood synergyExcellent synergy


## 4.3. Establishment of Order Parameter System

The synergy effects of the regional CME management synergy system depend on the synergistic actions among subsystems. According to the synergy theory, order parameters are the main variables responsible for the structural and functional changes of the system, and they determine the process and direction of the system evolution. Hence, choosing correct order parameters is crucial [7, 8]. Based on analysis of the elements of the regional CME management synergy system and the review of relevant information and research results of related scholars, and by combining the Delphi method, this study compiled the order parameter system that can indicate the order degree of the regional CME management synergy subsystem (Table 2).Table 2
Synergistic degree evaluation index system of the regional CME management synergy system.
SubsystemOrder parameterIndexCodeTypeDecision-making subsystem (M1)Synergy among subjectsSynergy with government departmentsx11PositiveSynergy with coal mining enterprisesx12PositiveAgreement in decision-making among subjectsx13PositiveInformation synergyInformation convey qualityx14PositiveInformation convey speedx15PositiveDegree of information sharingx16PositiveOrganization subsystem (M2)Structure synergyStructure order degreex21PositiveDifferentiation among levelsx22NegativeSynergy among departmentsDepartmental management spanx23NegativeCross-departmental synergy levelx24PositiveAuthority synergyOccupational synergy levelx25PositiveCompleteness of emergency response agreement among organizationsx26PositiveRationality of emergent assignment of authority and responsibilityx27PositiveProcess subsystem (M3)Precaution synergyCompleteness of basic datax31PositiveDifference in criterions and standards among organizationsx32NegativeSafety check timesx33PositiveAccident predicting and warning capacityx34PositivePreparation synergyEmergency rescue crewx35PositiveMutual aid agreement in emergency rescuex36PositiveInterorganizational planning adaptabilityx37PositiveAverage annual trainings for emergency response personnelx38PositiveEmergency drilling timesx39PositiveResponse synergyEmergency rescue technologies and professional equipmentx310PositiveInvolvement of emergency expertsx311PositiveEmergency response speedx312PositiveEffectiveness of emergency equipment and facilitiesx313PositiveRecovery synergyReliability of medical servicesx314PositiveReliability of emergency telecommunicationx315PositiveAccident investigation and reportx316PositiveEffectiveness of recovery planx317PositiveResource subsystem (M4)Reservation synergyApplicability of emergency equipmentx41PositiveSufficiency of emergency supplyx42PositiveDistribution synergyComplementarity of different resourcesx43PositiveTimeliness of resource acquisitionx44Positive


## 4.4. Weight Assignment of Order Parameter Index

There are generally subjective and objective methods of assigning index weights, each of which has its own advantages and disadvantages. Considering the difficulty in collecting raw information by using the subjective assignment method and the influence of subjective factors, this paper adopts the entropy weighing method to calculate the weight of each index. The calculation steps are as follows.(1)
Calculate the weight of theith subject of the jth index:
(8)θji=xji∑i=1nxjii=1,2,3⋯,m,j=1,2,⋯,n(2)
Calculate the entropy value of thejth index:Ifej is the entropy value of the jth evaluating index, its calculation is as follows:
(9)ej=−1lnm∑i=1mθjixji,ej∈0,1(3)
Calculate the differentiation coefficient:(10)gj=1−ej(4)
Calculate the weight of thejth index:
(11)θji=gj∑j=1ngjAccording to the above equations, the weights of all indexes in Table2 are calculated step by step, and the results are shown in Table 3.Table 3
Regional coal mine emergency system synergistic degree evaluation index weights.
SubsystemWeightsOrder parameterWeightsIndexCodeWeightsDecision subsystem (M1)0.3Synergy among subjects0.54Synergy with government departmentsx110.31Synergy with coal mining enterprisesx120.28Agreement in decision-making among subjectsx130.41Information synergy0.46Information convey qualityx140.21Information convey speedx150.33Degree of information sharingx160.46Organization subsystem (M2)0.25Structure synergy0.37Structure order degreex210.45Differentiation among levelsx220.55Synergy among departments0.32Departmental management spanx230.42Cross-departmental synergy levelx240.58Authority synergy0.31Occupational synergy levelx250.38Completeness of emergency response agreement among organizationsx260.21Rationality of emergent assignment of authority and responsibilityx270.41Process subsystem (M3)0.31Precaution synergy0.21Completeness of basic datax310.18Difference in criterions and standards among organizationsx320.12Safety check timesx330.16Accident predicting and warning capacityx340.54Preparation synergy0.23Emergency rescue crewx350.25Mutual aid agreement in emergency rescuex360.22Interorganizational planning adaptabilityx370.20Average annual trainings for emergency response personnelx380.15Emergency drilling timesx390.18Response synergy0.42Emergency rescue technologies and professional equipmentx3100.22Involvement of emergency expertsx3110.16Emergency response speedx3120.21Effectiveness of emergency equipment and facilitiesx3130.41Recovery synergy0.14Reliability of medical servicesx3140.13Reliability of emergency telecommunicationx3150.14Accident investigation and reportx3160.32Effectiveness of recovery planx3170.41Resource subsystem (M4)0.14Reservation synergy0.46Applicability of emergency equipmentx410.44Sufficiency of emergency supplyx420.56Distribution synergy0.54Complementarity of different resourcesx430.38Timeliness of resource acquisitionx440.62


## 5. Analysis on Empirical Results

### 5.1. Sample Selection and Data Processing

In this study, the provincial-level CME management system in Henan Province was taken as the sample for empirical analysis, and the regional CME synergistic degree evaluation index system and model constructed in Section3 were used to perform the actual measurement, evaluation, and result analysis. Henan Province, which is endowed with rich coal resources and boasts a long history of coal mining, is a key coal-producing province in China [20–22]. At present, the backbone coal mining enterprises in Henan mainly include the Yima Coal Group, China Pingmei Shenma Group, Henan Energy and Chemical Industry Group, and Zhengzhou Coal Industry Group. In addition, there are also a few local coal mining enterprises. The Henan Coal Mine Safety Supervision Bureau is a direct subsidiary of the State Coal Mine Safety Supervision Bureau. It has five branch bureaus: Zhengzhou, West Henan, East Henan, North Henan, and South Henan Supervision Branch. This research took as examples Henan Provincial Coal Mine Safety Supervision Bureau and relevant institutions, including the Jiaozuo Coal Industry Group, Zhengzhou Coal Industry Group, and China Pingmei Shenma Group, to carry out an empirical study on the synergistic degree of provincial-level CME management system.In terms of data sources, a total of 70 representatives (including government staff from the Henan Provincial Coal Mine Safety Supervision Bureau; senior and junior managers from coal mining enterprises such as Jiaozuo Coal Industry Group, Yima Coal Group, Zhengzhou Coal Industry Group, and China Pingmei Shenma Group; and scientific researchers from research institutes such as Henan University of Technology) were invited to score relevant indexes according to a 10-point scale with a minimum score of 0 and a maximum score of 10. After these experts gave their marks to the indexes in the regional CME management synergy system in Henan Province in the period 2015-2019 according to the actual situation, an averaged result was obtained.With respect to data processing, since the indexes correspond to different directions and dimensions, the raw data cannot be used directly for evaluation and comparison. Therefore, an appropriate method is needed to standardize these data so that the final score results of each index fall within the0,1 interval. For convenience concern, the raw data collected in this study were processed dimensionless using the deviation standardization method. The calculation is as follows.Assume thatxji is the nondimensional value of the jth index in the ith stage and that vji is the nondimensional value of the jth index in the ith stage, where n refers to the stage. Then, Equations (12) and (13) are adopted, respectively, for the standardization of positive and negative indexes:
(12)Positiveindex:xji=vji−min1≤i≤nvjimax1≤i≤nvji−min1≤i≤nvjii=1,2,⋯,m,j=1,2,⋯,n,(13)Negativeindex:xji=max1≤i≤nvji−vjimax1≤i≤nvji−min1≤i≤nvjii=1,2,⋯,m,j=1,2,⋯n.


### 5.2. Calculation of the Order Degrees of Order Parameters

Based on weights of each index, all the standardized dimensionless data were substituted into the previously constructed equations for calculating the order degrees of order parameters in subsystems. Afterwards, the order degrees of order parameters in regional CME management synergy subsystems in Henan Province were obtained (Tables4–7).Table 4
Order degree of the CME management synergy decision-making subsystem in Henan Province.
Year20152016201720182019Synergy among subjects0.5570.6820.7540.8410.915Information synergy0.6620.7240.8530.8190.896Table 5
Order degree of the CME management synergy organization subsystem in Henan Province.
Year20152016201720182019Structure synergy0.6270.7280.8590.8340.912Synergy among departments0.6580.7240.8460.8450.947Authority synergy0.6540.7410.8260.8310.887Table 6
Order degree of the CME management synergy process subsystem in Henan Province.
Year20152016201720182019Precaution synergy0.5730.6680.8320.8150.921Preparation synergy0.6280.7240.8430.9110.947Response synergy0.6840.7350.8470.8540.828Recovery synergy0.6570.7260.8160.8510.893Table 7
Order degree of the CME management synergy resource subsystem in Henan Province.
Year20152016201720182019Reservation synergy0.6540.7480.8460.8510.912Distribution synergy0.6410.6540.7490.8490.848


### 5.3. Calculation of the Synergistic Degrees of Subsystems

Based on the calculated synergistic degree values of order parameters and their weights, the orderliness values of all subsystems in the regional CME management synergy system were calculated in turn (Table8). Overall, from 2015 to 2019, the synergistic degrees of all CME management synergy subsystems in Henan Province have improved significantly, which means that the system has been heading for a more synergistic direction. Moreover, by comparing the order degree values of the four subsystems, it can be seen that the order degree of the process subsystem is relatively low for two main reasons: First, the average annual training frequency for emergency personnel in Henan Province is relatively low, barely meeting the basic requirement for training (i.e., once a year). Second, the coal market is in the downward phase in recent years, yet Henan Province has not added to its emergency response teams, which falls short to the synergy needs with other elements.Table 8
Order degrees of the CME management synergy subsystems in Henan Province.
Year20152016201720182019Decision subsystem0.6530.7150.8320.7450.821Organization subsystem0.6270.6960.7430.7210.847Process subsystem0.5840.6530.6870.6920.729Resource subsystem0.6570.7260.8360.8470.896


### 5.4. Calculation of the Synergistic Degree of the Composite System

The previously constructed SRCMEMCS model was used to calculate Equations (5)–(11), and the overall synergistic degree of the regional CME management synergy system in Henan Province in the period 2015-2019 was obtained (Table 9).Table 9
Overall synergistic degree of the CME management synergy system in Henan Province.
Year20152016201720182019Overall synergistic degree0.5630.6150.7320.7590.802The following is the findings acquired from the analysis on each subsystem: The decision subsystem was in the basic synergy stage from 2015 to 2017 and stayed there from 2017 to 2018 with the synergistic degree declined; subsequently, from 2018 to 2019, it entered a primary stage of good synergy where its synergy began to grow rapidly. The organization subsystem had a similar development trajectory to that of the decision subsystem, which also started from the basic synergy stage (2015-2017), then experienced a growth slowdown stage (2017-2018), and finally entered the primary stage of good synergy (2019). The resource subsystem had stayed in the basic synergy stage with a low growing rate since 2015, and it started to enter the primary stage of good synergy in 2018. However, the process subsystem exhibited relatively poor synergy compared with the other three subsystems; it started from the mild nonsynergy stage and entered the primary stage of basic synergy in 2016; although the emergency synergy state was gradually improving in these years, the growth rate was low and it remained in the advanced stage of basic synergy by the year 2019.


### 5.5. Results and Discussion

According to Table9 and Figures 2 and 3, the synergistic degree of the regional CME management system in Henan Province shows a steady upward trend. The elements of the CME management synergy system have been effectively collaborated and improved year by year. However, the speed of improvement slowed down from 2017 to 2018, with a slight decrease in adaptability of interorganizational plans, average frequency of emergency personnel training, emergency drills, and preventive safety inspections. Furthermore, the structural order degree and departmental management span also scored slightly lower in 2018 than in 2017. This phenomenon can be explained as follows: In 2018, the Chinese government underwent an institutional reform of the State Council, in which the former State Administration of Work Safety was replaced by the Ministry of Emergency Management. As a constituent department of the State Council, the newly formed Ministry of Emergency Management integrated relevant responsibilities of the previous nine units of State Administration of Work Safety, National Flood and Drought Control Headquarters, National Disaster Reduction Committee, State Council Earthquake Relief Headquarters, Headquarters of China Forest Fire Prevention, etc. With an extremely wide range of departments involved, this reform can be said to be a stripped-down rebuilding and reconstruction. On March 21, 2018, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China issued the Program for Deepening the Reform of Party and State Institutions, and local departments in various provinces and cities started institutional reforms in accordance with the requirements. On November 29, 2018, the Emergency Management Department of Henan Province was inaugurated, and local emergency management departments at all levels were established subsequently as institutional reform continued to accelerate. Therefore, 2018-2019 was in a special phase of mechanism transition, responsibility handover, and power conversion. It was also a crucial period of function integration, friction, and convergence. The scoring of the organization subsystem negatively affected the synergistic degree of the whole system in this special period of reform and run-in period. However, from a holistic perspective, the synergistic degree of the regional CME management synergy system in Henan Province in the period 2015-2019 has achieved significant growth from basic synergy to the primary stage of good synergy via a brief period of good synergy. From 2018 to 2019, the growth of synergistic degrees slowed down.Figure 2
Overall synergistic degree of the CME management synergy system in Henan Province (2015-2019).Figure 3
Synergistic degrees of CME management synergy subsystems in Henan Province (2015-2019).


## 5.1. Sample Selection and Data Processing

In this study, the provincial-level CME management system in Henan Province was taken as the sample for empirical analysis, and the regional CME synergistic degree evaluation index system and model constructed in Section3 were used to perform the actual measurement, evaluation, and result analysis. Henan Province, which is endowed with rich coal resources and boasts a long history of coal mining, is a key coal-producing province in China [20–22]. At present, the backbone coal mining enterprises in Henan mainly include the Yima Coal Group, China Pingmei Shenma Group, Henan Energy and Chemical Industry Group, and Zhengzhou Coal Industry Group. In addition, there are also a few local coal mining enterprises. The Henan Coal Mine Safety Supervision Bureau is a direct subsidiary of the State Coal Mine Safety Supervision Bureau. It has five branch bureaus: Zhengzhou, West Henan, East Henan, North Henan, and South Henan Supervision Branch. This research took as examples Henan Provincial Coal Mine Safety Supervision Bureau and relevant institutions, including the Jiaozuo Coal Industry Group, Zhengzhou Coal Industry Group, and China Pingmei Shenma Group, to carry out an empirical study on the synergistic degree of provincial-level CME management system.In terms of data sources, a total of 70 representatives (including government staff from the Henan Provincial Coal Mine Safety Supervision Bureau; senior and junior managers from coal mining enterprises such as Jiaozuo Coal Industry Group, Yima Coal Group, Zhengzhou Coal Industry Group, and China Pingmei Shenma Group; and scientific researchers from research institutes such as Henan University of Technology) were invited to score relevant indexes according to a 10-point scale with a minimum score of 0 and a maximum score of 10. After these experts gave their marks to the indexes in the regional CME management synergy system in Henan Province in the period 2015-2019 according to the actual situation, an averaged result was obtained.With respect to data processing, since the indexes correspond to different directions and dimensions, the raw data cannot be used directly for evaluation and comparison. Therefore, an appropriate method is needed to standardize these data so that the final score results of each index fall within the0,1 interval. For convenience concern, the raw data collected in this study were processed dimensionless using the deviation standardization method. The calculation is as follows.Assume thatxji is the nondimensional value of the jth index in the ith stage and that vji is the nondimensional value of the jth index in the ith stage, where n refers to the stage. Then, Equations (12) and (13) are adopted, respectively, for the standardization of positive and negative indexes:
(12)Positiveindex:xji=vji−min1≤i≤nvjimax1≤i≤nvji−min1≤i≤nvjii=1,2,⋯,m,j=1,2,⋯,n,(13)Negativeindex:xji=max1≤i≤nvji−vjimax1≤i≤nvji−min1≤i≤nvjii=1,2,⋯,m,j=1,2,⋯n.


## 5.2. Calculation of the Order Degrees of Order Parameters

Based on weights of each index, all the standardized dimensionless data were substituted into the previously constructed equations for calculating the order degrees of order parameters in subsystems. Afterwards, the order degrees of order parameters in regional CME management synergy subsystems in Henan Province were obtained (Tables4–7).Table 4
Order degree of the CME management synergy decision-making subsystem in Henan Province.
Year20152016201720182019Synergy among subjects0.5570.6820.7540.8410.915Information synergy0.6620.7240.8530.8190.896Table 5
Order degree of the CME management synergy organization subsystem in Henan Province.
Year20152016201720182019Structure synergy0.6270.7280.8590.8340.912Synergy among departments0.6580.7240.8460.8450.947Authority synergy0.6540.7410.8260.8310.887Table 6
Order degree of the CME management synergy process subsystem in Henan Province.
Year20152016201720182019Precaution synergy0.5730.6680.8320.8150.921Preparation synergy0.6280.7240.8430.9110.947Response synergy0.6840.7350.8470.8540.828Recovery synergy0.6570.7260.8160.8510.893Table 7
Order degree of the CME management synergy resource subsystem in Henan Province.
Year20152016201720182019Reservation synergy0.6540.7480.8460.8510.912Distribution synergy0.6410.6540.7490.8490.848


## 5.3. Calculation of the Synergistic Degrees of Subsystems

Based on the calculated synergistic degree values of order parameters and their weights, the orderliness values of all subsystems in the regional CME management synergy system were calculated in turn (Table8). Overall, from 2015 to 2019, the synergistic degrees of all CME management synergy subsystems in Henan Province have improved significantly, which means that the system has been heading for a more synergistic direction. Moreover, by comparing the order degree values of the four subsystems, it can be seen that the order degree of the process subsystem is relatively low for two main reasons: First, the average annual training frequency for emergency personnel in Henan Province is relatively low, barely meeting the basic requirement for training (i.e., once a year). Second, the coal market is in the downward phase in recent years, yet Henan Province has not added to its emergency response teams, which falls short to the synergy needs with other elements.Table 8
Order degrees of the CME management synergy subsystems in Henan Province.
Year20152016201720182019Decision subsystem0.6530.7150.8320.7450.821Organization subsystem0.6270.6960.7430.7210.847Process subsystem0.5840.6530.6870.6920.729Resource subsystem0.6570.7260.8360.8470.896


## 5.4. Calculation of the Synergistic Degree of the Composite System

The previously constructed SRCMEMCS model was used to calculate Equations (5)–(11), and the overall synergistic degree of the regional CME management synergy system in Henan Province in the period 2015-2019 was obtained (Table 9).Table 9
Overall synergistic degree of the CME management synergy system in Henan Province.
Year20152016201720182019Overall synergistic degree0.5630.6150.7320.7590.802The following is the findings acquired from the analysis on each subsystem: The decision subsystem was in the basic synergy stage from 2015 to 2017 and stayed there from 2017 to 2018 with the synergistic degree declined; subsequently, from 2018 to 2019, it entered a primary stage of good synergy where its synergy began to grow rapidly. The organization subsystem had a similar development trajectory to that of the decision subsystem, which also started from the basic synergy stage (2015-2017), then experienced a growth slowdown stage (2017-2018), and finally entered the primary stage of good synergy (2019). The resource subsystem had stayed in the basic synergy stage with a low growing rate since 2015, and it started to enter the primary stage of good synergy in 2018. However, the process subsystem exhibited relatively poor synergy compared with the other three subsystems; it started from the mild nonsynergy stage and entered the primary stage of basic synergy in 2016; although the emergency synergy state was gradually improving in these years, the growth rate was low and it remained in the advanced stage of basic synergy by the year 2019.


## 5.5. Results and Discussion

According to Table9 and Figures 2 and 3, the synergistic degree of the regional CME management system in Henan Province shows a steady upward trend. The elements of the CME management synergy system have been effectively collaborated and improved year by year. However, the speed of improvement slowed down from 2017 to 2018, with a slight decrease in adaptability of interorganizational plans, average frequency of emergency personnel training, emergency drills, and preventive safety inspections. Furthermore, the structural order degree and departmental management span also scored slightly lower in 2018 than in 2017. This phenomenon can be explained as follows: In 2018, the Chinese government underwent an institutional reform of the State Council, in which the former State Administration of Work Safety was replaced by the Ministry of Emergency Management. As a constituent department of the State Council, the newly formed Ministry of Emergency Management integrated relevant responsibilities of the previous nine units of State Administration of Work Safety, National Flood and Drought Control Headquarters, National Disaster Reduction Committee, State Council Earthquake Relief Headquarters, Headquarters of China Forest Fire Prevention, etc. With an extremely wide range of departments involved, this reform can be said to be a stripped-down rebuilding and reconstruction. On March 21, 2018, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China issued the Program for Deepening the Reform of Party and State Institutions, and local departments in various provinces and cities started institutional reforms in accordance with the requirements. On November 29, 2018, the Emergency Management Department of Henan Province was inaugurated, and local emergency management departments at all levels were established subsequently as institutional reform continued to accelerate. Therefore, 2018-2019 was in a special phase of mechanism transition, responsibility handover, and power conversion. It was also a crucial period of function integration, friction, and convergence. The scoring of the organization subsystem negatively affected the synergistic degree of the whole system in this special period of reform and run-in period. However, from a holistic perspective, the synergistic degree of the regional CME management synergy system in Henan Province in the period 2015-2019 has achieved significant growth from basic synergy to the primary stage of good synergy via a brief period of good synergy. From 2018 to 2019, the growth of synergistic degrees slowed down.Figure 2
Overall synergistic degree of the CME management synergy system in Henan Province (2015-2019).Figure 3
Synergistic degrees of CME management synergy subsystems in Henan Province (2015-2019).


## 6. Conclusions and Suggestions

In this paper, first of all, the composition and elements of the regional CME management synergy system in China were systematically analyzed according to the characteristics of China’s emergency management system. Afterwards, the order parameter index system of each subsystem of the regional CME synergy system was constructed based on synergy theory. In the next part, the composite system synergy model was adopted to quantitatively measure and analyze the order degrees of regional CME management synergy subsystems and the synergistic degree of the composite system in Henan Province in the period 2015-2019. The following conclusions were drawn: The order degrees of regional CME management synergy subsystems and the synergistic degree of the composite system in Henan Province have shown an overall upward trend, with synergistic degrees ranging from -0.563 to 0.802. All the elements involved in the CME management synergy system have seen annually deepening improvements in the synergistic degree as a synergistic development mechanism is established step by step. However, the synergistic degree in Henan grew relatively slow from 2018 to 2019, indicating sluggish synergistic development. In the end, through analysis of each subsystem, it can be drawn that among the four subsystems, the process subsystem shows a relatively lower synergistic degree compared with the other three subsystems. It started from a mild nonsynergy stage and entered the basic synergy stage in 2016, but with a slow-growing rate, which only led it to the advanced stage of basic synergy in 2019.Therefore, the following suggestions are made.(1)
Promote the construction of CME-management-synergy-related laws and regulationsIn this era of frequent emergencies, each department, which is considered a subsystem, needs to establish guidelines that apply to its emergency management efforts. Therefore, the development of CME management synergy requires the support of laws and regulations, and it is suggested to actively promote the construction of China’s emergency legal system; develop emergency synergy-related laws, regulations, systems, and standards; clearly stipulate the principles, disciplines, and responsibilities of relevant departments; and regulate emergency synergy in the form of legislation, so as to achieve the rule of law in emergency synergy.(2)
Construct a province-municipality-mine synergy modelIt is suggested to actively adapt to the new normal of China’s coal mine safety and emergency management work, give full play to the organizational coordination and comprehensive supervision role of emergency management agencies, and construct a three-level synergistic emergency response model of provincial, municipal, and mining areas. In a specific work context, the participating subjects in this model need to further enhance communication and scientific decision-making; give full play to the role of departments such as safety supervision, land and resources, public security, trade unions, industry and commerce, environmental protection and electricity to strengthen communication and coordination, and close cooperation and timely consultation; and actively explore the resource sharing mechanism and emergency response linkage between military force, local government, and coal mines and resource.(3)
Strengthen synergy between emergency plansAt present, most of the coal mining enterprises in China have emergency plans prepared according to national requirements, but those plans, made by different synergistic subjects, turn out to be poorly connected, so they expose insufficient synergy coordination effects in actual practice. Therefore, in a regional CME management synergy system, each coordinating subject should pay attention to the connection and cooperation of the emergency plans with other subjects when formulating the emergency plans and ensure that the emergency plans prepared can be connected with the relevant emergency plans in the system from both horizontal and vertical levels in accordance with the principle of “strong coherence within and across department and coordination between local governments and enterprises.”(4)
Establish supervision mechanism for regional emergency management synergyAs a complex collective action involving multiple departments, emergency management synergy is inherently challenging. The absence of clear organizational design and institutional norms could easily lead to the phenomenon of “free-riding,” which then brings difficulty to collective action. Therefore, it is necessary to establish and improve regional emergency synergy supervision mechanism and improve regional synergistic emergency management capability by holding accountable those who do not perform their duties faithfully and facilitating sound cooperation among all subjects in effectively responding to all kinds of emergent disasters and accidents.



---

*Source: 1845795-2022-05-19.xml*