Underground station passenger flow is large, the number of parcels carried by passengers is large and varied, and the parcels carried have an impact on the fire hazard and evacuation of the station. In order to determine the weights of the passenger luggage risk and environmental factor index system in the fire risk evaluation of underground stations in a more realistic way, an optimized and improved hierarchical analysis method for determining the judgement matrix is proposed, which improves the traditional nine-scaled method and adopts the three-scaled method for the four major categories of luggage, namely, handbags, rucksacks, portable power tools and trolley cases. The advantage of this method is that there is no need for consistency judgement in determining packages with a wide range of types and uncertain contents, thus simplifying the calculation. Meanwhile, the reasonableness and reliability of the method is verified by combining it with an actual metro station fire risk assessment system.

1. Di Graziano, A., Marchetta, V., Grande, J., et al. (2021). Application of a decision support tool for the risk management of a metro system. International Journal of Rail Transportation, 10(3), 352–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/23248378.2021.1906341
2. Erdin, C., & Çağlar, M. (2021). Rural Fire Risk Assessment in GIS Environment Using Fuzzy Logic and the AHP Approaches. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 30(6), 4971–4984. https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/136009
3. He, Z., & Elhami Khorasani, N. (2022). Identification and hierarchical structure of cause factors for fire following earthquake using data mining and interpretive structural modeling. Natural Hazards, 112(1), 947–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05214-0
4. Hysa, A. (2021). Classifying the forest surfaces in metropolitan areas by their wildfire ignition probability and spreading capacity in support of forest fire risk reduction. Integrated Research on Disaster Risks: Contributions from the IRDR Young Scientists Programme, 51–70.
5. Hysa, A. (2021). Indexing the vegetated surfaces within WUI by their wildfire ignition and spreading capacity, a comparative case from developing metropolitan areas. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 63, 102434.
6. Ju, W., Wu, J., Kang, Q., et al. (2022). Fire Risk Assessment of Subway Stations Based on Combination Weighting of Game Theory and Topics Method. Sustainability, 14(12), 7275. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127275
7. Kumar, A., Khare, R., Sankat, S., et al. (2022). Fire safety assessment for older adults in high-rise residential buildings in India: a comprehensive study. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 41(3), 625–646. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijbpa-02-2022-0030
8. Lin, X., Song, S., Zhai, H., et al. (2020). Using catastrophe theory to analyze subway fire accidents. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 11(1), 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-019-00942-2
9. Liu, G., Zhang, Y., Zhang, J., et al. (2023). Geographic-Information-System-Based Risk Assessment of Flooding in Changchun Urban Rail Transit System. Remote Sensing, 15(14), 3533. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15143533
10. Liu, J., Wan, L., Wang, W., et al. (2023). Integrated Fuzzy DEMATEL-ISM-NK for Metro Operation Safety Risk Factor Analysis and Multi-Factor Risk Coupling Study. Sustainability, 15(7), 5898. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075898
11. Liu, Q., He, R., & Zhang, L. (2022). Simulation-based multi-objective optimization for enhanced safety of fire emergency response in metro stations. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 228, 108820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2022.108820
12. Nuthammachot, N., & Stratoulias, D. (2019). A GIS- and AHP-based approach to map fire risk: a case study of Kuan Kreng peat swamp forest, Thailand. Geocarto International, 36(2), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2019.1611946
13. Nyimbili, P. H., & Erden, T. (2020). GIS-based fuzzy multi-criteria approach for optimal site selection of fire stations in Istanbul, Turkey. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 71, 100860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2020.100860
14. Rahardjo, H. A., & Prihanton, M. (2020). The most critical issues and challenges of fire safety for building sustainability in Jakarta. Journal of Building Engineering, 29, 101133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101133
15. Rezaeifam, S., Ergen, E., & Günaydın, H. M. (2023). Fire emergency response systems information requirements’ data model for situational awareness of responders: A goal-directed task analysis. Journal of Building Engineering, 63, 105531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105531
16. Smith, T. D., DeJoy, D. M., & Dyal, M.-A. (2020). Safety specific transformational leadership, safety motivation and personal protective equipment use among firefighters. Safety Science, 131, 104930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104930
17. Tong, Q., & Gernay, T. (2021). A hierarchical Bayesian model for predicting fire ignitions after an earthquake with application to California. Natural Hazards, 111(2), 1637–1660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-05109-6
18. Wang, W. (2019). Site Selection of Fire Stations in Cities Based on Geographic Information System (GIS) and Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP). Ingénierie Des Systèmes d Information, 24(6), 619–626. https://doi.org/10.18280/isi.240609
19. Wang, Y., Hou, L., Li, M., et al. (2021). A Novel Fire Risk Assessment Approach for Large-Scale Commercial and High-Rise Buildings Based on Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and Coupling Revision. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(13), 7187. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18137187
20. Yan, Z., & Wang, Y. (2021). Developing a Subway Fire Risk Assessment Model Based on Analysis Theory. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2021, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5549952
21. Yuliatti, M. M. E., & Hardi Purba, H. (2021). Construction project risk analysis based on fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (F-AHP): A Literature Review. Advance Researches in Civil Engineering, 3(3), 1–20.