Environmental Management

, 44:952 | Cite as

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

Article

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.

Keywords

Site management Risk assessment Ranking system Comparative risk assessment Fuzzy PROMETHEE 

References

  1. Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multicriteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bogen KT, Spear RC (1987) Integrating uncertainty and individual variability in environmental risk assessment. Risk Analysis 7(3):289–300Google Scholar
  3. 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 73–130Google Scholar
  4. 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 163–195Google Scholar
  5. Brans JP, Vincke Ph (1985) A preference ranking organization method (the PROMETHEE method for multiple criteria decision-making). Management Science 31:647–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 408–421Google Scholar
  7. Brans JP, Vincke Ph, Mareschal B (1986) How to select and how to rank projects: the PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research 24:228–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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):477–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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)Google Scholar
  10. 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 CCMEGoogle Scholar
  11. Connel DW, Markwell RD (1990) Bioaccumulation in the soil to earthworm system. Chemosphere 20(1–2):91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Detyniecki M, Yager R (2001) Ranking fuzzy numbers using α-weighted valuations. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 8(5):573–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Donald S (2003) Development of empirical possibility distributions in risk analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of New MexicoGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 1328–1333Google Scholar
  15. Dyer JS (1990) Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 36(3):249–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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/R2Google Scholar
  17. Fetter CW (1999) Contaminant hydrogeology, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 133–162Google Scholar
  19. 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 21–36Google Scholar
  20. 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, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  21. Geldermann J, Spengler T, Rentz O (2000) Fuzzy outranking for environmental assessment. Case study: iron and steel making industry. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 115:45–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 123:606–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gustafson DI (1993) Pesticides in drinking water. van Nostrand Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Jensen TS, Lerche DB, Sorensen PB (2003) Ranking contaminated sites using a partial ordering method. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 22:776–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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):95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. LaGrega MD, Buckingham PL, Evans JC (2001) Hazard waste management, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hall, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee K, Cho C, Kwang HL (1994) Ranking fuzzy values with satisfaction function. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 64:295–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Masson MH, Denoeux T (2006) Inferring a possibility distribution from empirical data. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 157:319–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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):2494–2504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Millet I, Wedley WC (2002) Modelling risk and uncertainty with the analytical hierarchy process. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 11:97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moller B, Beer M (2004) Fuzzy randomness. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 27–72Google Scholar
  33. Paustenbach DJ (2002) Human and ecological risk assessment: theory and practice. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Perez J (1995) Some comments on Saaty’s AHP. Management Science 41(6):1091–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roberts BL, Dorough HW (1983) Relative toxicities of chemicals to the earthworm Eisenia foetida. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 3:67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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 3–24Google Scholar
  37. Schoeny R (2007) USEPA’s risk assessment practice: default assumptions, uncertainty factors. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 13(1):70–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  39. Suter GW II et al (2007) Ecological risk assessment, 2nd edn. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  40. Travis CC, Arms AD (1988) Bioconcentration of organics in beef, milk and vegetation. Environmental Science and Technology 222(3):271–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 10:11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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):35–44Google Scholar
  43. 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/540/1-89-002Google Scholar
  44. US EPA (1997) Announcement of the draft drinking water candidate contaminant list; Notice. 62 FR 52194. Washington DC 20460Google Scholar
  45. US EPA. State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners. Dry cleaner site profiles. www.drycleancoalition.org/profiles. Accessed in 2007
  46. Wang Z, Triantophyllou E (2006) Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods. Omega 36(1):45–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wang M, Wang H, Lung LC (2005) Ranking fuzzy numbers based on lexicographic screening procedure. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 4(4):663–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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-PublicationGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil EngineeringUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations