nach oben

Environmental Management

Erschienen in:

01.11.2009

A Comparative Approach for Ranking Contaminated Sites Based on the Risk Assessment Paradigm Using Fuzzy PROMETHEE

verfasst von: Kejiang Zhang, Cheryl Kluck, Gopal Achari

Erschienen in: Environmental Management | Ausgabe 5/2009

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

A ranking system for contaminated sites based on comparative risk methodology using fuzzy Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE) was developed in this article. It combines the concepts of fuzzy sets to represent uncertain site information with the PROMETHEE, a subgroup of Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods. Criteria are identified based on a combination of the attributes (toxicity, exposure, and receptors) associated with the potential human health and ecological risks posed by contaminated sites, chemical properties, site geology and hydrogeology and contaminant transport phenomena. Original site data are directly used avoiding the subjective assignment of scores to site attributes. When the input data are numeric and crisp the PROMETHEE method can be used. The Fuzzy PROMETHEE method is preferred when substantial uncertainties and subjectivities exist in site information. The PROMETHEE and fuzzy PROMETHEE methods are both used in this research to compare the sites. The case study shows that this methodology provides reasonable results.

Vorheriger Artikel Integrating Landscape Analysis and Planning: A Multi-Scale Approach for Oriented Management of Tourist Recreation

Nächster Artikel Assessing Critical Source Areas in Watersheds for Conservation Buffer Planning and Riparian Restoration

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multicriteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer, Boston

Bogen KT, Spear RC (1987) Integrating uncertainty and individual variability in environmental risk assessment. Risk Analysis 7(3):289–300

Bouyssou D (2005) Conjoint measurement tools for MCDM. In: Figueria J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer Science + Business Media, Inc., Boston, pp 73–130

Brans J-P, Mareschal B (2005) PROMETHEE methods. In: Figueria J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer Science + Business Media Inc., Boston, pp 163–195

Brans JP, Vincke Ph (1985) A preference ranking organization method (the PROMETHEE method for multiple criteria decision-making). Management Science 31:647–656CrossRef

Brans JP, Mareschal B, Vincke P (1984) PROMETHEE: a new family of outranking methods in multicriteria analysis. Operational Research ‘84. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., North Holland, pp 408–421

Brans JP, Vincke Ph, Mareschal B (1986) How to select and how to rank projects: the PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research 24:228–238CrossRef

Burmaster DE, Anderson PD (1993) Principles of good practice for the use of Monte Carlo techniques in human and ecological risk assessments. Risk Analysis 14(4):477–481CrossRef

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Report (1992) National classification systems for contaminant sites (EPC-CS39E, prepared by the CCME Subcommittee on classification of contaminated sites for the CCME Contaminated Sites Task Groups)

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Report (2008) National classification systems for contaminant sites, ISBN 978-1-896997-80-3, developed by the Soil Quality Guidelines Task Group of CCME

Connel DW, Markwell RD (1990) Bioaccumulation in the soil to earthworm system. Chemosphere 20(1–2):91–100CrossRef

Detyniecki M, Yager R (2001) Ranking fuzzy numbers using α-weighted valuations. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 8(5):573–592CrossRef

Donald S (2003) Development of empirical possibility distributions in risk analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of New Mexico

Dubois D, Prade H (1999) A unified view of ranking techniques for fuzzy numbers. In Proc. 1999 IEEE Int. Conf. Fuzzy systems, Seoul, vol 3, pp 1328–1333

Dyer JS (1990) Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 36(3):249–258CrossRef

Efroymson RA, Will ME, Suter GW (1997) Toxicological benchmarks for contaminants of potential concern for effects on soil and litter invertebrates and heterotrophic process: 1997 revision. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. ES/ER/TM-126/R2

Fetter CW (1999) Contaminant hydrogeology, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

Figueria J (2005) ELECTRE methods. In: Figueria J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer Science + Business Media, Inc., Boston, pp 133–162

Figueria J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (2005) Introduction. In: Figueria J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer Science + Business Media, Inc., Boston, pp 21–36

Garg A, Achari G, Ross TJ (2004) A preliminary fuzzy multi objective decision making model to rank contaminated sites for remediation. Presented at the 32nd Annual General Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

Geldermann J, Spengler T, Rentz O (2000) Fuzzy outranking for environmental assessment. Case study: iron and steel making industry. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 115:45–65CrossRef

Goumas M, Lygerou V (2000) An extension of the PROMETHEE method for decision making in fuzzy environment: ranking of alternative energy exploitation projects. European Journal of Operational Research 123:606–613CrossRef

Gustafson DI (1993) Pesticides in drinking water. van Nostrand Reinhold, New York

Jensen TS, Lerche DB, Sorensen PB (2003) Ranking contaminated sites using a partial ordering method. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 22:776–783CrossRef

Kiker GA, Bridges TS, Varghese A, Seager TP, Linkov I (2005) Applications of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 1(2):95–108CrossRef

LaGrega MD, Buckingham PL, Evans JC (2001) Hazard waste management, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hall, Inc., New York

Lee K, Cho C, Kwang HL (1994) Ranking fuzzy values with satisfaction function. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 64:295–309CrossRef

Masson MH, Denoeux T (2006) Inferring a possibility distribution from empirical data. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 157:319–340CrossRef

McKone TE, Maddalena RL (2007) Plant uptake of organic pollutants from soil: bioconcentration estimates based on models and experiments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 26(12):2494–2504CrossRef

Millet I, Wedley WC (2002) Modelling risk and uncertainty with the analytical hierarchy process. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 11:97–107CrossRef

Moller B, Beer M (2004) Fuzzy randomness. Springer, Berlin

Ozturk M, Tsoukias A (2005) Preference modelling. In: Figueria J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer Science + Business Media, Inc., Boston, pp 27–72

Paustenbach DJ (2002) Human and ecological risk assessment: theory and practice. Wiley, New York

Perez J (1995) Some comments on Saaty’s AHP. Management Science 41(6):1091–1095CrossRef

Roberts BL, Dorough HW (1983) Relative toxicities of chemicals to the earthworm Eisenia foetida. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 3:67–78CrossRef

Roy B (2005) Paradigms and challenges. In: Figueria J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer Science + Business Media, Inc., Boston, pp 3–24

Schoeny R (2007) USEPA’s risk assessment practice: default assumptions, uncertainty factors. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 13(1):70–76CrossRef

Shatkin JA, Patton CA, Palma-Oliveira JM (2001) A comparative risk assessment methodology for prioritizing risk management policy initiatives: ranking of industrial waste streams in Portugal. In: Linkov I, Palma-Oliveria J (eds) Assessment and management of environmental risks and cost-efficient methods and applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands

Suter GW II et al (2007) Ecological risk assessment, 2nd edn. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL

Travis CC, Arms AD (1988) Bioconcentration of organics in beef, milk and vegetation. Environmental Science and Technology 222(3):271–274CrossRef

Triantaphyllou E (2001) Two new cases of rank reversals when the AHP and some of its additive variants are used that do not occur with the multiplicative AHP. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10:11–25CrossRef

Triantaphyllou E, Mann S (1995) Using the analytic hierarchy process for decision making in engineering applications: some challenges. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Applications and Practice 2(1):35–44

US EPA (1989) Risk assessment guidance for superfund: volume 1 human health evaluation manual (Part A) Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/540/1-89-002

US EPA (1997) Announcement of the draft drinking water candidate contaminant list; Notice. 62 FR 52194. Washington DC 20460

US EPA. State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners. Dry cleaner site profiles. www.drycleancoalition.org/profiles. Accessed in 2007

Wang Z, Triantophyllou E (2006) Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods. Omega 36(1):45–63CrossRef

Wang M, Wang H, Lung LC (2005) Ranking fuzzy numbers based on lexicographic screening procedure. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 4(4):663–678CrossRef

Weeks JM (1998) Effetcs of pollutants on soil invertebrates: Links between levels. In: Schuurmann G, Markert B (eds) Ecotoxicology: ecological fundamentals, chemical exposure, and biological effects. Wiley, New York/Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, Berlin Co-Publication

Titel: A Comparative Approach for Ranking Contaminated Sites Based on the Risk Assessment Paradigm Using Fuzzy PROMETHEE
verfasst von: Kejiang Zhang
Cheryl Kluck
Gopal Achari
Publikationsdatum: 01.11.2009
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: Environmental Management / Ausgabe 5/2009
Print ISSN: 0364-152X
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1009
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9368-7

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2009

Superfund, Hedonics, and the Scales of Environmental Justice

Residents’ Yard Choices and Rationales in a Desert City: Social Priorities, Ecological Impacts, and Decision Tradeoffs

Microhabitat Selection by Three Common Bird Species of Montane Farmlands in Northern Greece

Forecasting the Effects of Land-Use Change on Forest Rodents in Indiana

The Environmental “Risky” Region: Identifying Land Degradation Processes Through Integration of Socio-Economic and Ecological Indicators in a Multivariate Regionalization Model

Erratum to: Characterizing the Relative Contributions of Large Vessels to Total Ocean Noise Fields: A Case Study Using the Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary