Resources Policy 86 (2023) 104067

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resourpol

Dynamic simulation and control strategy exploration of the unsafe behavior

of coal mine employees
Wanzhen Li b, Lujie Zhou a, c, *, Jian Hao b, Kai Yu c, Jing Chen c, Pingping Liu b, Rui Feng b
a
State Key Laboratory of Mining Disaster Prevention and Control Co-founded By Shandong Province and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Shandong University of
Science and Technology, Qingdao, 266590, China
b
College of Energy and Mining Engineering, Shandong University of Science and Technology, Qingdao, 266590, China
c
College of Safety and Environmental Engineering, Shandong University of Science and Technology, Qingdao, 266590, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Approximately 80% of production safety accidents in Chinese coal mining industry companies are caused by
Coal mine employees unsafe behaviors. Therefore, in-depth study of employees unsafe behavior and its control technology have great
Unsafe behavior practical and theoretical value for the prevention and control of coal mine accidents. In this paper, a dynamic
Early warning
simulation model of the unsafe behavior of coal mine workers is established, and 28 factors that affect the unsafe
Control strategy
behavior of coal mine workers are summarized. Combined with agent and system dynamics, a dynamic simu­
lation of the change law of unsafe behavior of coal mine workers is carried out, and unsafe behavior is found. The
simulation results between different groups are consistent. Through the study of interventions and control
measures for the unsafe behavior of coal mine employees, a control strategy for the unsafe behavior of coal mine
employees is proposed, and a control strategy base is established. According to the situation, this kind of result
will strengthen the early-warning control of unsafe behaviors and provide a practical method for the guidance of
safety management. Research on unsafe behavior can potentially solve the safety management of coal mining
enterprises.

1. Introduction of the understanding of unsafe behavior and the development of related

Unsafe behavior is one of the important reasons for risks or accidents.
According to the statistical results, the proportion of human error in all
the direct causes of major accidents in coal mine accidents in China is as
high as 97.67% (Han et al., 2022). Moreover, in China, the working
environment of coal miners is poor, the risk of operation is high, the
income is low, and the overall education level and technical quality of
coal miners are low (Di H., 2017). Therefore, it is of great significance to
summarize the previous research results, study the unsafe behavior and
its influencing factors of coal mine employees, and find ways to reduce
the unsafe behaviors of coal mine employees.
Some early scholars considered the concept of unsafe employee
behavior to be the same as “human error”. At this stage, there was no
distinction between human engineering and unsafe behavior, while
some restudies discussed the results of human error as a direct substitute
for unsafe behavior (L Rigby, 1970; Swain and Guttmann, 1983; Reason,
J., 1990; Senders and Moray, 1991; Themes, 2001). With the deepening
disciplines, an increasing number of safety management experts have
begun to establish simulation models of unsafe behavior accidents. Ex­
amples include the Swiss cheese model (Reason, J., 2005), the accident
reason cause tracking model (ARCTM) (Silva, S.et al., 2013), and the
limited reaction model (Endroyo et al., 2017). The Gray-Markov Model
was also used to predict the million tons mortality rate in coal mines
(Chen S. et al., 2015).
With the deepening of the understanding of unsafe behavior and the
development of related disciplines, an increasing number of safety
management experts have begun to establish accident simulation
models of unsafe behavior. Among the existing studies, the use of system
dynamics (SD) in the aspect of coal mine workers’ unsafe behavior oc­
cupies the vast majority, such as the use of system dynamics to establish
a new model of employees’ unsafe behavior on the basis of analyzing the
formation mechanism of coal mine workers’ unsafe behavior (Li and
Tian, 2016) or the method of combining with human modeling to
interact with workers’ behavior (Jiang Z., 2014). There are also

* Corresponding author. State Key Laboratory of Mining Disaster Prevention and Control Co-founded By Shandong Province and the Ministry of Science and
Technology, Shandong University of Science and Technology, Qingdao, 266590, China.
E-mail address: 13969891661@163.com (L. Zhou).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104067
Received 29 March 2023; Received in revised form 18 August 2023; Accepted 18 August 2023
Available online 30 August 2023
0301-4207/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W. Li et al.
proposed control strategies for coal mine workers’ unsafe behavior
based on simulation results (You, Q et al., 2023). A new system of coal
mine workers’ unsafe behavior is proposed based on system dynamics
(Yu, K et al., 2022). Combining the human factors analysis, classification
system and system dynamics model, the important influencing factors of
miners’ unsafe behaviors were explored (Wang, 2021).
In recent years, some experts and scholars have made new research
contributions to other models. The decision-making model of miners’
unsafe behavior was constructed from the three-dimensional model
(Ren et al., 2013), the foundation of behavioral economics (Li and Yang,
2018), and the intelligent control of employees’ unsafe behavior. For
coal miners’ unsafe behaviors, the JD-R model dual program (Tong, R
et al., 2019), quadruple evolutionary game model of the internal
CMBSM system (Zhang et al., 2023), combined with HFACS-CM, SEM,
and SD models to evaluate miners’ unsafe behaviors in deep coal mining
(Yang et al., 2022) were constructed to produce a new model for
simulating the subjects, networks and parameters of miners’ unsafe
behavior propagation (Tian S. et al., 2019).
Other insightful studies have been developed. Modeling from the
perspective of group unsafe behavior and occupational safety and health
has been conducted to explore early warning and control measures for
group unsafe behavior (Yu et al., 2019a, b; Cao et al., 2019; Zhou, 2018).
From the perspective of safety behaviors, the influence of safety atti­
tudes on safety behaviors was analyzed using the Safety Attitude Scale
and the Safety Behavior Scale, and the importance of early warning of
unsafe behaviors to prevent and control the occurrence of coal mine
accidents was also argued from the opposite perspective (Li Y. et al.,
2019). Data mining methods were used to analyze unsafe data, and four
main factors were found to influence unsafe behavior (Qiao, W. et al.,
2018). Gray relational analysis was used to analyze miners’ unsafe
behavior in Wmine (Tian et al., 2021). A three-way game model of
regulators, coal mining enterprises and workers was developed to
explore the impact of the risk perception level of coal mining enterprises
on safety (Li et al., 2022). The relationship between hazards, risks and
accidents was explored, and the root-state hazard identification (RSHI)
method was proposed (Liu et al., 2021).
In conclusion, the simulation of unsafe behaviors around the world
mainly focuses on the following aspects: first, it focuses on the rela­
tionship between unsafe behaviors and accident results; second, it
mainly explores the relationship between unsafe behaviors and influ­
encing factors. However, how to verify the feasibility and authenticity of
the model has become a weak link in the study of unsafe behavior
decision-making. Therefore, it is necessary to further improve the
existing theory of safe behavior, establish a more reasonable model of
unsafe behavior decision-making in combination with the characteris­
tics of coal mine employees’ work, and further explore the control
countermeasures of the unsafe behavior of coal mine employees.
It is well known that coal mine workers’ unsafe behaviors are char­
acterized by susceptibility to infection, strong behavioral preferences,
and high uncertainty, so it is difficult to completely intervene, simulate
and predict coal mine workers’ unsafe behaviors. Through the previous
literature review, it is found that the current research on coal mine
workers’ unsafe behavior mainly reflects the following:
(1) A single simulation model for coal mine workers’ unsafe behav­
iors is used, and there is a lack of model feasibility verification.
(2) With more focus on process analysis, the research results cannot
be applied in practice, and there is a lack of research on the early
warning application of unsafe behavior among coal mine
workers.
In summary, there is still a large research space for the study of coal
mine workers’ unsafe behavior, so this paper continues to analyze in
depth on the basis of previous research and intends to carry out further
research in the following aspects:
2
Resources Policy 86 (2023) 104067
(1) Determine the influencing factors of coal mine workers’ unsafe
behaviors, establish an unsafe behavior model, combine the
system dynamics modeling and intelligent body modeling
methods, both of which are mutually verified, and establish a
more reasonable decision-making model of unsafe behaviors by
combining the work characteristics of coal mine employees.
(2) Develop an early warning technology system for coal miners’
unsafe behavior.
This paper intends to conduct an in-depth study in four parts. The
first part gives a brief overview of the system dynamics model as well as
the intelligent body model, combines the two through data analysis and
model analysis, and then introduces the necessity of choosing two
models for simulation in this paper. In the second part, the dynamic
model of coal mine workers’ unsafe behavior is established. On the basis
of clarifying the relationship between the factors of unsafe behavior, the
dynamic simulation model is established by using intelligent body
modeling and system dynamics, which not only explores the behavioral
transmission law among different groups and develops the decision-
making method to control unsafe behavior but also realizes the
mutual verification of the simulation results by the two modeling
methods. In the third part, 28 influencing factors are derived from the
accident tree analysis, the early warning technology of coal miners’
unsafe behaviors is developed, and an example analysis is carried out
with the Tangkou Coal Industry Co., Ltd. as the research object. The
fourth part is the conclusion and outlook, which summarizes the paper
and proposes corresponding countermeasures for coal mine workers’
unsafe behaviors, providing practical guidance for safety management.
Through the research of this paper, the law of development and
evolution of unsafe behavior of coal mine workers is derived, and the
early warning control system of unsafe behavior of coal mine workers is
developed. The results of this research can provide theoretical and
technical support for research and applications in this field. Meanwhile,
the technology has been experimentally applied in Shandong Tangkou
Coal Industry Co., Ltd. where the number of three violations has been
significantly reduced, the safety management level of the coal mine
enterprise has substantially changed, the informatization level of the
enterprise’s safety management has been improved, and significant so­
cial and economic benefits have been created.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Overview of system dynamics
System dynamics was first founded by MIT professor Jay Forrester in
the early 1950s. It is a computer simulation technology based on system
theory and information theory to study the dynamic behavior of sys­
tems. It is mainly used to analyze the dynamic relationship between the
structure, function and behavior of complex systems such as society,
economy and ecology. It is especially suitable for dealing with complex
problems with a nonlinear degree, high order and multiple variables and
making investigations and police analyses by means of computer
simulation. The basic logic diagram of system dynamics is shown in
Fig. 1.
The stock can also be called the state variable, which represents
anything in our reality. It can be a physical object or a state. The flow
represents the rate of structural change in the system. Fig. 1 shows that
the stock is connected by flow, and there is mutual circulation. The
dynamic variables and parameters in the system can directly affect the
stock and variables, and the stock can also affect the change in dynamic
variables. The connecting lines between variables and parameters
constitute the structure of the system.
2.2. Overview of the agent
Agents are the most novel modeling simulation method at present
W. Li et al.
Fig. 1. Basic structure diagram of system dynamics.
and were initially applied to distributed artificial intelligence research.
At present, agents have been applied to many fields, so it is impossible to
give a strict and clear definition of agents. However, agents are used in
many new fields and directions by scholars because of the characteristics
of factor autonomy and flexibility in the actual system.
Agent modeling is autonomous and social, and in a specific envi­
ronment, through effectors acting on the environment, agents can
interact with each other and can also solve problems with clear in­
terfaces and boundaries. Among them, the characteristics that the agents
can communicate with each other and influence each other have a high
degree of fit with the unsafe behavior of employees, such as regret,
willfulness, and high uncertainty.
2.3. Brief introduction of the modeling tools
AnyLogic is a new modeling and simulation software that covers
many disciplines, such as system dynamics and discrete events. Java is
the main programming language of its modeling, and the software has
unique flexibility, which can let the user truly feel the simulation effect
after the system runs. At the same time, AnyLogic has a powerful model
storage background, which makes it convenient for users to directly and
quickly retrieve the graphic objects they want to apply, reducing the
modeling time (Álvarez-Santos et al., 2018). Considering the compre­
hensive simulation function of AnyLogic, after analyzing the unsafe
behaviors of coal mine workers, the characteristics of many factors and
complex organization are obtained. Therefore, this paper uses the soft­
ware of AnyLogic as the main tool for the simulation of unsafe behaviors.
2.4. Model necessity analysis
To continuously improve its economic benefits, coal mining com­
panies must be able to ensure the safety and health of their employees by
reducing the frequency of accidents; to reduce the frequency of acci­
dents, they must precontrol the occurrence of accidents; to precontrol
the occurrence of accidents, they must do a good job in every link of
safety management work; therefore, group behavior is an important link
that directly affects the occurrence of individual behavior. How to
standardize the safety behavior of employees and how to control group
safety under the condition of multiple decision-making means have
become problems that coal mining enterprises need to consider. On this
basis, it is essential to combine the resources available in the safety
discipline to create an unsafe behavior model to simulate the behavioral
safety state of employees. On the one hand, the safety education and
training is invisible, which can improve the safety cognitive skills of
employees and reduce the occurrence of unsafe behaviors; on the other
hand, it is also a calibration of company safety decision-making, which
can directly let the safety managers know the impact trend of each safety
decision on group safety.
3
Resources Policy 86 (2023) 104067
3. Construction and analysis of the dynamic model
3.1. Construction of the system dynamics model
The causality diagram of system dynamics (SD) can only show the
dynamic change process of the interaction among the factors in the
system. It is a kind of qualitative analysis, unable to complete the spe­
cific quantitative analysis of the interaction between the factors. How­
ever, the flow chart of system dynamics (SD) can be divided into state
variables, rate variables, auxiliary variables and constants according to
their functions in the system to realize the quantitative analysis of
various factors among the systems (Goerlandt and Reniers, 2018).
This paper researched 183 cases of heavy coal mine accidents pub­
lished on the website of the State Administration of Work Safety from
2013 to 2022 and studied the accident types of safety analysis and ac­
cident notification issued by the office of the Safety Committee of the
State Council as well as the causes of major accidents. Then, by using
theoretical and literature research methods, we referred to many
scholars’ unsafe behaviors of coal mine employees. From the perspective
of the causes of mine accidents in 2013–2022, there are many factors
threatening the unsafe behaviors of employees. There are 28 influencing
factors. The 28 factors are divided into 7 flow rates, 13 dynamic vari­
ables and 8 parameters according to the system dynamic flow chart.
Table 1 introduces the variables.
One of the subsystems is the behavior transmission among groups. It
is assumed that there are four groups in a company: the original
employee group, the behavior neutral group, the unsafe behavior group
and the safety behavior employee group.
The original employee group refers to the employee group assumed
by the company that does not have any behavior characteristics; the
behavior neutral group refers to a part of the group that is vulnerable to
behavior infection; the unsafe behavior group refers to the general name
of the employees who have unsafe behavior; and the safety behavior
employee group refers to the employee group that can modify behavior
and prevent unsafe behavior. The change in the number of people
among different groups in a period can be used to express the process of
behavior transmission considering the complexity of unsafe behavior
and the interrelated characteristics between groups. Therefore, it is
believed that behavior-neutral groups are the most vulnerable groups,
which will develop into unsafe behavior groups under the guidance of
unsafe behavior factors, but some neutral groups also return to the
original employee group under the guidance of efficiency. However, the
ultimate development trend of unsafe behavior is from unsafe to safe
behavior under the role of the group. The role of the group can be
considered the result of group cohesion and group pressure. The SD map
of this subsystem is shown in Fig. 2.
Table 1
Variables introduction.
Nature of Name of Variables
Variables
Stock Original Employee Group, Behavior Neutral Group, Unsafe
Behavior Group, Safety Behavior Employee Group, Judgment
Level of Decision Stock of Employees
Flows Joining of New employees, Conversion Rate of Neutral Group,
Conversion Rate of Original Group, Conversion Rate of Unsafety
Behavior, Removal Rate of Unsafety Behavior, Impact of Wrong
Decision, Impact of Accidents on Decision-making
Dynamic Behavior Variation, Existing Strategy Aversion, Conflict on
Variables Existing Decision-making, Accident Impact Rate, Accident
Severity Level, Group Attitude on Safety, Behavior Infection Rate,
Psychological Coefficient, Violation Punishment, Unsafe
Coefficient, Risk Coefficient, Decision-making Management
Coefficient, Accident Relative Intensity
Parameter Organizational Culture Atmosphere, Safety Input, Education and
Training, Original Group Transformation Coefficient, Group
Pressure, Group Cohesion, Safety Attitude, Delay on Decision
Information
W. Li et al.
Fig. 2. SD map of behavioral transmission among different groups.
The other part of the subsystem refers to the level of decision-making
and judgment of employees, which can be understood as the degree of
change in employees’ judgment ability for safety decision-making over
time. Employees will correct their behaviors under the action of a
certain safety decision. However, due to the occurrence of accidents
during the period and the delay of decision-making information and
other reasons, employees will not trust the original safety decision.
Then, it will cause a change in the level of decision-making judgment.
The SD chart is shown in Fig. 3.
In the system dynamics model of unsafe behavior, the organizational
culture atmosphere, safety input, education and training, group pres­
sure, group cohesion and safety attitude are set as controllable factors
for the whole model. At the same time, the original employee group, the
initial employee group and the initial unsafe employee group can be set
in the system dynamics model to explore the behavior changes in
different numbers of group units, as shown in Fig. 4.
3.2. Construction of the agent model
The agent modeling adopts the bottom-up research method. Through
the research of group change, the unsafe behavior model of the agent
(AB) is established, and the individual characteristics of coal mine em­
ployees are mapped to the attributes of the agent so that a single agent
represents the individual coal mine employee, and multiple agents
represent the coal mine employees. In this model, each individual
employee can be regarded as an agent, the individual condenses into a
group, and the group achieves real-time information exchange between
agents, comprehensively simulating the changes between different
groups of unsafe behaviors.
Based on the agent simulation modeling platform and Java pro­
gramming language, the unsafe behavior logic architecture is con­
structed to form two parts of the agent model body:
1) The main model of unsafe behavior, the setting part of the parame­
ters of each link related to unsafe behavior, is shown in Fig. 5.
The number of employees is the sum of the number of original em­
ployees and new employees. On the basis of the original group of em­
ployees, the number of new employees is increased randomly according
to the Java statement. The operation of the overall model is also started
Fig. 3. Employees decision-making level SD chart.
4
Resources Policy 86 (2023) 104067
on the basis of the set program.
2) In the internal structure model of the agent, the employee individual
is defined as the agent to judge the logical relationship between the
employee individual and the group. The parameters, variables,
logical functions and other data of these two parts can interact in real
time and call each other.
In this structure chart, the addition of new employees is also
randomly generated. However, there are active and inactive individuals
in both neutral and unsafe behavior groups. This difference will further
clarify the randomness of behavior in the process of transmission.
3.3. Model operation effect display and the operation result analysis
3.3.1. Overall design of the model
The unsafe behaviors of coal mine employees proliferate easily, as
well as the characteristics of strong behavior preference, high uncer­
tainty, and layered distribution. Therefore, it is difficult to completely
intervene, simulate and predict the unsafe behaviors of coal mine em­
ployees. To date, the existing research on the intervention measures of
unsafe behavior control in China is obviously insufficient, with most
studies focusing on theoretical summaries and not in-depth research. At
the same time, some research results cannot be applied in practice, there
is no operability in actual work, and we cannot discuss the control and
intervention effect of unsafe behavior. The following should be noted:
(1) The intervention of unsafe behavior control of coal mine workers
should be “from virtual to real”, and theoretical basic research
and practical investigation should be conducted in the early
stage. Through these early works, the simulation modeling of
unsafe behavior control intervention is carried out, and then the
invisible unsafe behavior is clarified.
(2) To clarify the influence degree of unsafe factors of coal mine
workers, it is necessary to list the factors with great influence
degree as the main parameters, to clarify whether the main pa­
rameters are the resulting factors or the causal factors and to take
the risk transfer law of unsafe behaviors into account in the
simulation model.
W. Li et al.
Fig. 4. Unsafe SD diagram.
Fig. 5. Agent model.
(3) It is necessary to consider the current situation of unsafe behavior
management in actual coal companies and to combine the
simulation results with the actual situation to make the final
simulation results practical.
(4) Unsafe behavior management of coal mine workers is long-term
work, so simulation modeling should consider sufficient time
nodes.
(5) Any decision has timelines, and the implementation of the new
decision will bring certain results. However, with the passage of
time, the employees will adapt and increase their resistance to the
existing decision. Therefore, the establishment of the simulation
model should consider the resistance of the employees to the
decision.
(6) The unsafe behavior of coal mine workers is based on the group in
the safety of actual coal mine production, and the individual
behavior is finally reflected in the unsafe behavior statistics of the
group team.
5
Resources Policy 86 (2023) 104067
As system dynamics is about changing complex relationships be­
tween factors from a virtual state to a graphical analytical structure,
mathematical equations are used to calculate the dynamic relationships
between the factors, quantifying the structure and finally arriving at a
system analysis that fits the actual situation. The autonomous and social
properties of agent modeling, on the other hand, allow for self-
management within the social laws of the system in which it is
embedded, reducing the influence of additional constraints. At the same
time, the combination of the two allows the accuracy of the model to be
verified, eliminating uncertainty due to a single model.
In summary, the purpose of the dynamic simulation model of the
unsafe behavior of coal mine employees – the “SD + AB unsafe behavior
model” – is to combine with practice and meet the strategic test of coal
mine companies. Based on the principle of agent and system dynamics,
this paper simulates the changing rule of group behavior under the
condition of different constant changes in the unsafe behavior of em­
ployees and provides a new method for the management of the unsafe
W. Li et al. Resources Policy 86 (2023) 104067

Table 2 eventually become safe behavior groups.

Original variable values. It can be seen from the difference between the SD and AB models that
Parameter Name Initial Range Control Method although the trend of the two models is basically the same, there are still
Value subtle differences. The number of people in each group is different at
Original Employee Group 2000 [1000,10,000] Sliding Block each model time point, but the maximum error of the two models cannot
Adjustment exceed 5% in the graph, which also shows that the construction of the
Behavior Neutral Group 450 [300,1000] Sliding Block two models in the study of unsafe behavior simulation is reasonable.
Adjustment
Initial Unsafety Group 250 [200,800] Sliding Block
Adjustment
4. Discussion on early warning technology of coal miners’
Delayed Decision-making 10 [0,50] Sliding Block unsafe behavior
Information Adjustment
Safety Investment 0.12 [0,1] Sliding Block The study of unsafe behavior simulation models can clearly identify
Adjustment
the key causal points that affect the occurrence of unsafe behavior of
Safety Attitude 20 [5,50] Sliding Block
Adjustment coal mine workers, while the application of unsafe behavior early
Organizational Culture 1 [0,5] Sliding Block warning technology is to study the key points, and by increasing the
Atmosphere Adjustment early warning of key causal points, the accuracy of the early warning can
Education and Training 15 [10,30] Sliding Block
be improved, thus preventing the occurrence of unsafe behavior of
Adjustment
Group Pressure 15 [10,30] Sliding Block
workers in a more scientific and efficient manner.
Adjustment To effectively control the unsafe behaviors of coal mine workers, this
paper studies and implements an early warning technology system for
the unsafe behaviors of coal mine workers. Through analysis and early
behavior of coal mine employees. control of this system, the paper scientifically implements the control
strategy of unsafe behaviors. At present, the unsafe behaviors of coal
3.3.2. Effect and analysis of operation mine employees are mainly reflected in the “three violations”, that is,
Combining the previous agent model and system dynamics model – illegal operation, illegal command and violation of labor discipline.
“SD + AB unsafe behavior model”, the dynamic system simulation Therefore, this paper carries out early warning technology research on
model of unsafe behavior is formed, which consists of the AB model, SD unsafe behaviors.
model, model comparison and model description. Table 2 shows the
value of each variable parameter in the initial state.
4.1. Accident causality tree analysis of unsafe behaviors
As shown in Fig. 6, click “Operation” after setting the initial value,
and the model will run automatically. After the model runs, click “AB
According to previous research on the unsafe behaviors of employees
model”, “SD model”, “model comparison” and “model description” on
and the analysis of the relationship between unsafe behaviors and ac­
top of the model to switch the module interface.
cidents, to study the prevention and control measures for accidents
Fig. 7 shows the agent model running interface. It can be seen from
caused by unsafe behaviors, an accident causality tree by unsafe be­
the page that the parameters in the running process of the agent are
haviors was prepared, as shown in Fig. 10. The reason for accidents by
consistent with the system dynamics because the parameter settings of
unsafe behaviors is a consequence of ineffective intervention and control
the whole model are unified. At the same time, there is a “random agent
strategies, which causes failure factors to influence employees to engage
state chart” button in the agent module, which can observe the change in
in unsafe behavior. The meanings of the letters in the accident tree are
the background agent logic state chart at any time.
shown in Table 3.
Fig. 8 shows the operation interface of the system dynamics. It can be
The structure of the accident tree is listed as
seen from the figure that when the system dynamics model is in the
operation state, all stocks, flows and variables are in a state of dynamic

T = A1⋅A2 = (B1 + B2 + B3 + B4 + B5 )⋅A2

= (x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 + x5 + x6 + x7 + x8 + x9 + x10 + x11 + x12 + x13 + x14 + x15 + x16 + x17 + x18 + x19 + x20 + x21 + x22 + x23 + x24 + x25 + x26 )
(x27 + x28 + x29 + x30 )

change.
Fig. 9 shows the comparison of the agent model and system dynamic
model. It can be seen from the two model figures that the number of
original employees has been decreasing with the model time because the
original employees have been changing to other groups. However, the
number of behavior-neutral groups increased at the beginning stage and
decreased in the final stage. At the end of the model running time, the
number of behavior-neutral groups was less than the initial number. The
unsafe behavior group shows a similar trend to the neutral group. As the
number of neutral groups increases, the number of unsafe behavior
groups also increases. After the number of the neutral group falls, the
number of the unsafe behavior group also falls. However, since there is
still a part of the neutral group, the number of unsafe behavior groups
cannot be zero. The number of safety behavior employee groups is the
opposite that of the initial employees group, and most of them will
The minimum path set of the accident tree is used for further anal­
ysis. The fault tree has two sets of minimum paths, P1 and P2:
P1 = {x1,x2,x3,x4,x5,x6,x7,x8,x9,x10,x11,x12,x13,x14,x15,x16,x17,x18,x19,x20,x21,
x22,x23,x24,x25,x26}
P2 = {x27,x28,x29,x30,x31}
P1 is composed of 26 basic events, and P2 is composed of 5 basic
events. There are two possible ways to prevent the occurrence of acci­
dents caused by unsafe behaviors of top incidents, that is, 26 basic events
in P1 or 5 basic events in P2 do not occur, so the occurrence of top in­
cidents can be avoided, that is, unsafe behaviors of employees can be
avoided.
According to the minimum path set, it can be seen that in the same
path set, each basic event occurs the same number of times in the path

6
W. Li et al.
Fig. 6. Picture of the model startup screen.
Fig. 7. Agent model operation interface.
set, which is once, so the structural importance coefficient I φ (I) of these
basic events is equal. The structural importance of basic events x1—x26 is
the same and that of basic events x27-x31 is the same, but the structural
importance of basic events x27–x31 is greater than that of basic events x1-
x26.
Iφ(1) = Iφ(2) = Iφ(3) = Iφ(4) = Iφ(5) = Iφ(6) = Iφ(7) = Iφ(8) = Iφ(9) = Iφ
(10) = Iφ(11) = Iφ(12) = Iφ(13) = Iφ(14) = Iφ(15) = Iφ(16) = Iφ(17) = Iφ
(18) = Iφ(19) = Iφ(20) = Iφ(21) = Iφ(22) = Iφ(23) = Iφ(24) = Iφ(25) = Iφ
(26)＜Iφ(27) = Iφ(28) = Iφ(29) = Iφ(30) = Iφ (31)
Compared with the failure of the causal factors, the intervention
strategy of unsafe behaviors has a more serious impact on the overall
unsafe behaviors.
According to the above calculation and analysis of the accident tree,
7
Resources Policy 86 (2023) 104067
it can be concluded that the control of unsafe behaviors of employees
should start from two aspects: one is to reduce or avoid the causal factors
of unsafe behaviors, and the other is to provide reasonable and effective
intervention and control measures for the production of unsafe behav­
iors of employees. According to the accident tree analysis, intervention
and control measures for unsafe behaviors are proposed in accordance
with the causes of unsafe behaviors. The intervention and control
measures formulated can effectively control the factors affecting the
basic events x1~x26. Therefore, research on the causes of unsafe be­
haviors should focus on how to formulate reasonable and effective
intervention and control measures, which is very important for
analyzing causal factors stemming from the unsafe behavior of
employees.
W. Li et al. Resources Policy 86 (2023) 104067

Fig. 8. System dynamics run interface.

Fig. 9. Model comparison.

8
W. Li et al. Resources Policy 86 (2023) 104067

Fig. 10. Fault tree analysis of unsafe behavior.

manager safety behavior, as well as the management technology system

Table 3
of relevant technology and equipment. The main method is to monitor
Original variable values.
and analyze the unsafe behaviors of employees in real time to obtain
Alphabet Meaning information on unsafe behaviors. After systematic analysis and scientific
T The Fault Analysis of Unsafe Behavior treatment, the coal mine workers’ unsafe behavior early warning tech­
A1 The Causes of Unsafe Behavior nology system judges whether the severity of unsafe behavior exceeds
A2 Ineffective Intervention and Control Strategy
the critical value and issues early warning signals. This kind of tech­
B1 Environmental Factor
B2 Individual Factors nology can urge the responsible unit to take corrective measures to
B3 Group Factor eliminate unsafe behaviors and reduce the probability of unsafe
B4 Leadership Factors behavior accidents.
B5 Organizational Management Factors The early warning technology system of unsafe behaviors of coal
x1 Environmental Site Difference
mine employees includes the collection of unsafe behavior information,
x2 Low human‒machine Matching
x3 Lack of Emergency Resources the transmission, storage and analysis of unsafe behavior information,
x4 Lack of Safety Equipment the identification and management of unsafe behaviors, the early
x5 High Group Pressure warning prompt of unsafe behaviors, the evaluation and monitoring of
x6 Low Group Cohesion
the rectification effect of unsafe behaviors, and the implementation of
x7 Low human‒machine Matching
x8 Lack of Safety Equipment
the control strategy of unsafe behaviors. The early warning technology
x9 Poor Safety Attitude system and information flow of unsafe behaviors of coal mine employees
x10 Lack of Leadership Safety Commitment are shown in Fig. 11.
x11 High Fatigue It can be seen from Fig. 11 that the early warning technology system
x12 Poor Emotional Stability
for unsafe behaviors of coal mine employees is a circular structure, the
x13 Lack of Safety Knowledge
x14 Inattention key part of which is to judge whether it is necessary to send out early
x15 Slow Emergency Response warning information according to the early warning standard for unsafe
x16 Poor Skill Operation behaviors. If the early warning technology system for unsafe behaviors
x17 Lack of Working Experience
of coal mine employees meets the early warning standard, send out the
x18 Low Risk Identification Ability
x19 Poor Mental State
early warning information for unsafe behaviors and propose relevant
x20 Lack of Education departments and operators eliminate unsafe behaviors and take rectifi­
x21 Lack of Information Communication and Feedback cation measures; through rectification effect evaluation, if the rectifi­
x22 Lack of Organizational Culture Atmosphere cation is qualified, the early warning shall be cancelled, and normal
x23 Imperfect System and Norms
production operation shall be resumed.
x24 Low decision-making Management
x25 Unreasonable Punishment for Violation of Regulations On the basis of the previous study, the early warning control mea­
x26 Less Safety Investment sures for unsafe behavior of coal mine workers are integrated, and an
x27 Safety Management Failure early warning control system for unsafe behavior of coal mine workers is
x28 Failure of Individual Intervention compiled to provide early warning supervision and management of
x29 Failure of Group Intervention
x30 Poor Safety Leadership
unsafe behavior of coal mine workers, which is entered into the system
x31 Poor Physical Environment at the same time as the unsafe behavior of workers occurs, and the
corresponding control measures are retrieved to rectify the unsafe
behavior, thus achieving comprehensive control of unsafe behavior. A
4.2. Early warning technology system for the unsafe behaviors of coal functional block diagram of the system for unsafe employee behavior in
mine employees coal mines is shown in Fig. 12.
Based on the system requirement analysis and the coal mine workers’
The early warning technology system of unsafe behavior of coal mine unsafe behavior warning process, the system is divided into seven
workers is a management technology system that considers the pro­ functional modules, including hazard forecasting activities, BBS
duction process, production environment, production employee and behavior observation, EAP plan, behavioral risk identification,

9
W. Li et al.
Fig. 11. Precautions technology system and the information process of the unsafe behavior of coal mine employees.
behavioral risk warning, control countermeasures and system
management.
4.3. Early warning methods for the unsafe behaviors of coal mine
employees
The purpose of the early warning technology of unsafe behavior
management of coal mine workers is to accurately warn of the unsafe
behavior of relevant employees, guide and standardize the safe work
behavior of coal mine workers, effectively reduce the risk of accidents,
and ensure the safe production of coal mine enterprises. Its specific
working methods are as follows.
1) Information collection of unsafe behavior
The collection of unsafe behavior information of coal mine em­
ployees mainly uses the method of manual collection, which means that
full-time safety supervisors, safety managers and production managers
complete the discovery and collection of unsafe behavior information; at
the same time, when conditions permit, special equipment or moni­
toring systems are used to automatically collect information.
2) Transmission, storage and analysis of risk information
The risk information manually collected shall be incorporated in the
table of unsafe behavior information, as shown in Table 4. Input the
information into the computer and it will be stored in the database of the
server; the risk information collected by human use of automatic in­
struments will also be transmitted and stored in this way. The unsafe
behavior information monitored by the computer is stored by the
monitoring computer and transmitted to the database of the network
server by the interface software through the computer network. Ac­
cording to the needs of security work, the risk information stored in the
network server can be researched or statistically analyzed by using the
statistical chart analysis method.
3) Identification and management of unsafe behaviors
The identification and management of unsafe behaviors of coal mine
employees include the following content.
① Identify the risk of unsafe behavior. There are two ways to
identify the risk of unsafe behavior, which should be reasonably
selected according to the actual proficiency in the production
process: first, the experience discrimination method, in which the
10
Resources Policy 86 (2023) 104067
manager directly identifies the risk of unsafe behaviors of em­
ployees according to their own experience in safe production;
second, the system safety analysis method, which adopts accident
type and impact factor analysis, safety checklist, event tree
analysis, accident tree analysis and other systematic safety
analysis methods, is used to make a systematic and comprehen­
sive analysis of the unsafe behaviors of coal mine workers. This
kind of method will accurately identify all kinds of unsafe
behavior risks.
② Evaluate the risk level. Evaluate the risk level and define the early
warning range of unsafe behavior risk. In this paper, the behav­
ioral risk classification standard proposed in the literature “En­
terprise Risk Management and Monitoring Early Warning
Technology” is directly applied to divide the unsafe behavioral
risk into three levels: “serious”, “general” and “slight”. The clas­
sification standard is shown in Table 5 (Milanowicz et al., 2018).
③ Risk management will be selected according to different situa­
tions. According to the risk level of unsafe behaviors of coal mine
employees, it is important to select reasonable and effective
management and control measures. Meanwhile, to ensure the
safety and orderly operation of the production process, it is also
meaningful to urge the responsible department and manager to
eliminate unsafe behaviors in time and even take reasonable
remedial measures.
4) Warning tips for unsafe behaviors
According to the monitoring results of the unsafe behaviors of em­
ployees and safety behavior norms, an “early warning prompt” of unsafe
behaviors is used to prompt, fore-warn and warn of the unsafe behaviors
of relevant employees to urge them to put an end to unsafe behaviors
and perform their safety work responsibilities in a timely, correct and
effective manner. The purpose of early warning and warning is to rectify
and standardize their behavior. For employees who fail to achieve the
purpose of rectification, special measures should be taken for education
and correction.
5) Evaluation and monitoring of the rectification effect of unsafe
behaviors
Supporting software is used to evaluate, manage and track the
rectification of unsafe behaviors of employees. Mainly from the
following aspects:
W. Li et al. Resources Policy 86 (2023) 104067

Fig. 12. Functional block diagram of the coal mine employee unsafe behavior system.

11
W. Li et al.
Fig. 13. Three violations of the trend map of the Tangkou Coal Industry Co.,
Ltd. (June 2018–December 2022).
① Determination of the rectification period. For unsafe behaviors
that have been given early warning, determine the rectification
period, ensure the elimination of unsafe behaviors within the
most reasonable time, and implement rectification and remedial
measures in a timely manner.
② Tracking of rectification and evaluation of the rectification effect.
Track and analyze the occurrence of unsafe behaviors of em­
ployees in real time, and evaluate the elimination of unsafe be­
haviors and the implementation of rectification and remedial
measures. For unsafe behaviors within the rectification period,
the rectification can be divided into “implemented”, “to be
reviewed” and “not rectified”.
③ Rectification effect monitoring. Track and monitor the rectifica­
tion of unsafe behaviors in real time. Send out “warning” in time
for unsafe behaviors beyond the rectification period. Cancel the
warning status in time for unsafe behaviors that have been
rectified.
6) Control measures for unsafe behaviors of coal mine workers
According to the actual situation and classification of unsafe be­
haviors of coal mine employees, this paper studies and proposes targeted
control measures for unsafe behaviors of coal mine employees from the
five aspects of environment, individual employees, employees’ groups,
safety management and safety leadership, which should be implemented
in coal mine safety management.
4.4. An example analysis of coal mine workers’ unsafe behavior early
warning control
Shandong Tangkou Coal Industry Co., Ltd. is located in Nanzhang
Town, Rencheng District, Jining City, China. It is currently the mine
with the largest production capacity of the Zikuang Group, with a
Table 4
Unsafe behavior information.
Check Place Name of Fulling table
Order Implement department Check Time
1
2
3
Resources Policy 86 (2023) 104067
designed annual production capacity of 3 million tons, and a supporting
coal preparation plant with an annual processing capacity of 3 million
tons. The company has 15 underground mining and auxiliary units, 13
divisions (departments) and 7 ground units, with 2882 registered em­
ployees. In various departments of the company, three violations and
hidden dangers of accidents occur from time to time, and the production
safety situation is not optimistic. In this case, the early warning and
control technology of coal mine workers’ unsafe behavior has been
experimentally applied at Shandong Tangkou Coal Industry Co., Ltd.
since 2020. The system statistically analyzes the three violations of
Tangkou Coal Industry Co., Ltd. before 2020 and intelligently proposes
control countermeasures from the unsafe behavior control counter­
measure library.
System of intelligent analysis of unsafe behavior control counter­
measures to the coal mine worker early warning control system of the
control countermeasures for the library, on the basis of the behavioral
risk identification, early warning, from safety management, individual,
group, and five aspects of state and environment safety leadership,
comprehensive, multidimensional substantially increased the coal mine
worker group safety behavior level, effectively reducing the three vio­
lations. After the control measures proposed by the system were offi­
cially implemented in January 2020, to verify the effectiveness of the
countermeasures, a survey of the three violations of Tangkou Coal In­
dustry Co., Ltd. were conducted for more than five years. Fig. 13 is the
trend chart of the three violations of Tangkou Coal Industry Co., Ltd.
from June 2018 to December 2022.
As shown in Fig. 13, the number of three violations of Tangkou Coal
Industry Co., Ltd. began to drop sharply in January 2020. Over time,
although the number of three violations fluctuated, the overall trend was
downward, indicating that the control measures in coal mine workers
have played a role. The data come from the “Warning and Control
System for Unsafe Behaviors of Coal Mine Workers”. The data in the
system database start at the end of May 2018, so the data statistics are
from June 2018. A flow chart of the application of early warning control
technology in the enterprise is shown in Fig. 14.
For a more in-depth analysis, the triple violation data for September
to December for the five years 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 were
compared and analyzed, as shown in Table 6 and Fig. 15.
By way of comparison, it is evident that the number of violations for
the same period from 2020 to 2022 is significantly lower and decreasing
month by month compared to September to December in 2018 and
2019, indicating that the control strategy is working in the population.
As shown in Fig. 15, the three violations from September to December
from 2020 to 2022 are relatively close to each other, indicating that the
level of safety behavior of Tangkou Coal Industry Co., Ltd. employees
Table 5
The degree of danger of unsafe behavior risk.
Risk level Definition
Level Serious unsafe behaviors (serious three violations) and failure
I——Serious to stop them in time will result in casualties or major property
losses
Level General unsafe behaviors, which may lead to property loss if not
II——General stopped in time
Level Slight unsafe behaviors, which may lead to minor accidents if
III——Slight not stopped
Date
Problem Name of in charge Time of rectification Remark
12
W. Li et al. Resources Policy 86 (2023) 104067

Fig. 14. Flow chart of the application of early warning control technology in the enterprise.

has stabilized as a result of the control measures.

Table 6
With the implementation of the application and gradual improve­
Comparison of the number of violations by employees from September to
ment of the early warning and control system of coal mine workers’
December in the Tangkou Coal Industry Co., Ltd. in the past three years.
unsafe behavior, the results not only gradually improved the coal mine
Month Three violations years September October November December workers’ awareness of safe production but also strengthened and
2018 2239 1982 2123 2208 improved the coal mine workers’ handling methods and handling
2019 2080 2130 2048 1719 strength of unsafe behavior. By analysis of Tangkou Coal Industry Co.,
2020 1057 1200 1179 1030
Ltd., the field of application and data testing results show that the em­
2021 936 921 995 947
2022 909 916 957 862 ployees operation of formal degree has been significantly improved, the
safety production level also has improved, the coal mine safety man­
agement level of enterprises has had a substantial change, remarkable
social and economic benefits have been created, and national informa­
tization construction has been further promoted. It improved the in­
formation level of enterprise security management.

5. Conclusion and recommendations

The innovations of this paper are mainly reflected in the following:

based on 28 influencing factors of unsafe behavior, this paper establishes
a dynamic simulation model of unsafe behavior – the “SD + AB unsafe
behavior model”, which conducts a dynamic simulation analysis of
group safe behavior to deeply study the intervention and control strat­
egy of unsafe behavior of employees. Second, we explore the dynamic
influence mechanism between the influencing factors within the model
and provide a theoretical basis for the development of behavioral early
warning technology.
Specifically, the following results and conclusions were found:

(1) The dynamic simulation model of the unsafe behavior of coal

Fig. 15. Comparison of the trend of three violations in September–December of
the Tangkou Coal Industry Co., Ltd. in the past three years.
mine workers is combined with agent and system dynamics. It is
found that the simulation results of unsafe behavior among
different groups are consistent. Under the condition that the
behavior intervention strategy remains unchanged, with the
advancement of time, the original employees group will gradu­
ally change into a safe group; at the same time, the trend of the
unsafe behavior group is consistent with that of the behavior
neutral group, but the change time point will lag behind.

13
W. Li et al.
(2) On the basis of dynamic simulation and accident tree analysis,
this paper studies the intervention and control strategy of unsafe
behaviors of coal mine employees. The control strategies of un­
safe behaviors of coal mine employees were proposed, which are
reasonable, scientific and effective, based on which the control
strategy database of unsafe behaviors can be established.
Starting from the unsafe behavior of coal mine workers, this paper
gives more attention to research on methods and simulation application
effects and proposes relevant suggestions for the safety development of
coal mining enterprises. However, limited by time and energy, this
thesis still has the potential for further research. In the future, we plan to
continue research in the following areas:
(1) Consider how to further improve the scientific accuracy of the
“SD + AB unsafe behavior model” in practical applications.
(2) Further consider applying the “SD + AB unsafe behavior model”
through the deep learning algorithm to realize its self-learning
type and better achieve the purpose of safety management.
Other research in this direction will be further improved in future
work, hoping to achieve better results.
Author statement
Wanzhen Li (First Author): Conceptualization, Software, Investi­
gation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing - Original Draft, Writing
- Review & Editing;
Lujie Zhou (Corresponding Author): Data Curation, Writing -
Original Draft, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Investigation;
Jian Hao: Supervision, Validation, Methodology;
Kai Yu: Visualization, Investigation, Funding acquisition;
Jing Chen: Resources, Supervision;
Pingping Liu: Validation;
Rui Feng: Visualization.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
This paper is supported and funded by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (52204224). The authors would like to thank the
authors of the references.
References
Álvarez-Santos, J., Miguel-Dávila, J.Á., Herrera, L., Nieto, M., 2018. Safety management
system in TQM environments. Saf. Sci. 101, 135–143.
Cao, Q., Yu, K., Zhou, L., Wang, L., Li, C., 2019. In-depth research on qualitative
simulation of coal miners’ group safety behaviors. Saf. Sci. 113, 210–232.
Chen, S.S., Xu, J.H., Fan, Y., 2015. Evaluating the effect of coal mine safety supervision
system policy in China’s coal mining industry: a two-phase analysis. Resour. Pol. 46,
12–21.
14
Resources Policy 86 (2023) 104067
Di, H., 2017. Study on the Structure, Propagation Law and its Influence on Unsafe
Behavior of Coal Miners’ Work Stress. Xi’an University of Science and Technology.
Endroyo, B., Suraji, A., Besari, M.S., 2017. Model of the maturity of pre-construction
safety planning. Procedia Eng. 171, 413–418.
Goerlandt, F., Reniers, G., 2018. Prediction in a risk analysis context: implications for
selecting a risk perspective in practical applications. Saf. Sci. 101, 344–351.
Han, S., Chen, H., Long, R.Y., Jiskani, I.M., 2022. Can miners’ social networks affect their
safety commitment? A case study of Chinese coal mining enterprises. Resour. Pol.
75, 102535.
Jiang, Z., 2014. Modeling and Simulation of Building Construction Safety-Related
Behaviors. Tsinghua University.
Li, L., Tian, S., 2016. “Pre-behaving-behaving-post-behaving “combination intervence of
coal miners’ unsafe behaviors. J. Xi’an Univ. Sci. Technol. (4), 463–469.
Li, Y., Yang, S., 2018. Simulation analysis of unsafe behavior of miners from the
perspective of behavioral economics. China Safety Production Science and
Technology (1), 18–23.
Li, Y., Wu, X., Luo, X., Gao, J., Yin, W., 2019. Impact of safety attitude on the safety
behavior of coal miners in China. Sustainability 11 (22), 6382.
Li, S., Yang, Q., Zhang, Y., Liu, J., 2022. Multi-agent evolutionary game analysis of the
coal mine on-site regulatory mode. Resour. Pol. 77, 102723.
Liu, Q., Peng, Y., Li, Z., Zhao, P., Qiu, Z., 2021. Hazard identification methodology for
underground coal mine risk management-Root-State Hazard Identification. Resour.
Pol. 72, 102052.
Milanowicz, M., Budziszewski, P., Kędzior, K., 2018. Numerical analysis of passive safety
systems in forklift trucks. Saf. Sci. 101, 98–107.
Qiao, W., Liu, Q., Li, X., Luo, X., Wan, Y., 2018. Using data mining techniques to analyze
the influencing factor of unsafe behaviors in Chinese underground coal mines.
Resour. Pol. 59, 210–216.
Reason, J., 1990. Human Error. Cambridge university press.
Reason, J., 2005. Safety in the operating theatre–Part 2: human error and organisational
failure. BMJ Qual. Saf. 14 (1), 56–60.
Ren, C., Zhao, Z., Cai, D., Xu, S., 2013. Development and application of coal mine unsafe
behavior warning simulation system. Mining Safety and Environmental Protection
(1), 52–55.
Rigby, L., 1970. The nature of human error. In: Milwaukee: in Annual Technical
Conference Transactions of the ASQC.
Senders, J., Moray, N., 1991. Human Error: Cause, Prediction, and Reduction. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale.
Silva, S., Araújo, A., Costa, D., Melia, J.L., 2013. Safety climates in construction industry:
understanding the role of construction sites and workgroups. Open J. Saf. Sci.
Technol. (4), 80–86.
Swain, A.D., Guttmann, H.E., 1983. Handbook of Human-Reliability Analysis with
Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications. Final Report (No. NUREG/CR-1278.
Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (USA). SAND-80-0200).
Themes, 2001. Report on Updated List of Methods and Critical Description.
Tian, S., Dong, W., Shen, X., Liu, Q., 2019. Simulation research on the propagation of
miners’ unsafe behavior based on Netlogo. J. Saf. Environ. 19 (6), 2016–2022, 2019.
Tian, S., Shao, G., Li, H., Yang, P., Dang, Q., Yuan, F., 2021. Research on management
and control of miners’ unsafe behavior based on gray theory. Shock Vib. 2021, 1–12.
Tong, R., Yang, X., Li, H., Li, J., 2019. Dual process management of coal miners’ unsafe
behaviour in the Chinese context: evidence from a meta-analysis and inspired by the
JD-R model. Resour. Pol. 62, 205–217.
Wang, P., 2021. Analysis and Simulation of Miners’ Unsafe Behavior Based on HFACS
and SD. Anhui University of Science and Technology.
Yang, L., Wang, X., Zhu, J., Sun, L., Qin, Z., 2022. Comprehensive evaluation of deep coal
miners’ unsafe behavior based on HFACS-CM-SEM-SD. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ.
Health 19 (17), 10762.
You, Q., Yu, K., Zhou, L., Zhang, J., Lv, M., Wang, J., 2023. Research on risk analysis and
prevention policy of coal mine workers’ group behavior based on evolutionary game.
Resour. Pol. 80, 103262.
Yu, K., Zhou, L., Hu, C., Wang, L., Jin, W., 2019a. Analysis of influencing factors of
occupational safety and health in coal chemical enterprises based on the analytic
network process and system dynamics. Processes 7 (1), 53.
Yu, K., Zhou, L., Cao, Q., Li, Z., 2019b. Evolutionary game research on symmetry of
workers’ behavior in coal mine enterprises. Symmetry 11 (2), 156.
Yu, K., Zhang, S., Liu, P., Zhou, L., Chen, J., 2022. Research on simulation and decision-
making of coal mine workers’ behavior risk. Mathematics 10 (18), 3297.
Zhang, Y., Wang, S.X., Yao, J.T., Tong, R.P., 2023. The impact of behavior safety
management system on coal mine work safety: a system dynamics model of
quadripartite evolutionary game. Resour. Pol. 82, 103497.
Zhou, L., 2018. Research on Unsafe Behavior Simulation and Early Warning Control
System of Coal Mine Workers. Shandong University of Science and Technology.