Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 18, pp 18687–18707 | Cite as

An interactive group decision model for selecting treatment schemes for mitigating air pollution

  • Jun-Liang Du
  • Yong LiuEmail author
  • Jeffrey Yi-Lin Forrest
Research Article
  • 71 Downloads

Abstract

Air pollution has caused huge losses of life and property. So, how to choose a practically effective scheme to m.itigate air pollution is of great significance. However, such a selection problem of treatment schemes represents really a group negotiation process of many decision makers (DMs), involving a variety of fuzzy information and preferences. To successfully address this selection problem, this paper proposes a novel group negotiation decision model by jointly employing various approaches, such as hesitant fuzzy set, grey target, grey incidence analysis, and graph model for conflict resolution (GMCR). Then, this model is used to determine the equilibrium schemes for treating air pollution. It is expected that this work provides a method for Chinese government to introduce programs to target air pollution control.

Keywords

Air pollution Scheme selection Conflict resolution Grey incidence analysis Equilibrium scheme 

Notes

Funding

This work is partially funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71503103;71801085;71802098); the Humanities and Social Sciences of Education Ministry (17YJC640233); Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK20150157); Social Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (14GLC008); Soft Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BR2018005); Jiangsu Province University Philosophy and Social Sciences for Key Research Program (2017ZDIXM034); the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2019JDZD06); and Postgraduate Research and Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Provence (KYCX18_1885). Even with all these funding agencies, this work does not involve any conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aljefri YM, Bashar MA, Fang L et al (2017) First-level hypergame for investigating misperception in conflicts. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst Hum 99:1–18Google Scholar
  2. Banaeian N, Mobli H, Fahimnia B et al (2018) Green supplier selection using fuzzy group decision making methods: a case study from the agri-food industry. Comput Oper Res 89:337–347Google Scholar
  3. Bashar MA, Obeidi A, Kilgour DM et al (2016) Modeling fuzzy and interval fuzzy preferences within a graph model framework. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 24(4):765–778Google Scholar
  4. Bashar MA, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM et al (2018) Interval fuzzy preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. Fuzzy Optim Decis Making 17(3):287–315Google Scholar
  5. Biswas P, Pramanik S, Giri BC (2016) TOPSIS method for multi-attribute group decision-making under single-valued neutrosophic environment. Neural Comput Applic 27(3):727–737Google Scholar
  6. Bouzon M, Govindan K, Rodriguez CMT (2018) Evaluating barriers for reverse logistics implementation under a multiple stakeholders’ perspective analysis using grey decision making approach. Resour Conserv Recycl 128:315–335Google Scholar
  7. Boyne GA (1998) Public choice theory and local government. Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  8. Chaffin BC, Garmestani AS, Gosnell H et al (2016) Institutional networks and adaptive water governance in the Klamath River Basin, USA. Environ Sci Pol 57:112–121Google Scholar
  9. Chen XY, Shao S, Tian ZH et al (2017) Impacts of air pollution and its spatial spillover effect on public health based on China’s big data sample. J Clean Prod 142:915–925Google Scholar
  10. Chen X, Zhao L, Özdemir MS et al (2018) Mixed strategy to allocate resources with air pollution treatment in China: based on the analytic network process and large-group decision-making method. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(1):1–15Google Scholar
  11. China News Service.(2018) China has encountered the heaviest air pollution process since the fall, and experts have analyzed the causes. http://www.chinanews.com/gn/2018/11-26/8685819.shtml
  12. Delgado M, Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E et al (1998) Combining numerical and linguistic information in group decision making. Inf Sci 107(1-4):177–194Google Scholar
  13. Deng JL (2005) The primary methods of grey system theory. Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press, WuhanGoogle Scholar
  14. Dong HJ, Dai HC, Dong L et al (2015) Pursuing air pollutant co-benefits of CO2 mitigation in China: a provincial leveled analysis. Appl Energy 144:165–174Google Scholar
  15. Dutta B, Guha D (2015) Partitioned Bonferroni mean based on linguistic 2-tuple for dealing with multi-attribute group decision making. Appl Soft Comput 37:166–179Google Scholar
  16. Fang LP, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (1993) A decision support system for interactive decision making: the graph model for conflict resolution. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Feng L, Liao WJ (2016) Legislation, plans, and policies for prevention and control of air pollution in China: achievements, challenges, and improvements. J Clean Prod 112:1549–1558Google Scholar
  18. Gao JL, Yuan ZW, Liu XW et al (2016) Improving air pollution control policy in China—a perspective based on cost–benefit analysis. Sci Total Environ 543:307–314Google Scholar
  19. Gou XJ, Liao HC, Xu ZS et al (2017) Double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set and MULTIMOORA method: a case of study to evaluate the implementation status of haze controlling measures. Inf Fusion 38:22–34Google Scholar
  20. Govindan K, Rajendran S, Sarkis J et al (2015) Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. J Clean Prod 98:66–83Google Scholar
  21. He S, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2017) A general hierarchical graph model for conflict resolution with application to greenhouse gas emission disputes between USA and China. Eur J Oper Res 257(3):919–932Google Scholar
  22. Jiang ZQ, Wu WJ, Qin H et al (2018) Credibility theory based panoramic fuzzy risk analysis of hydropower station operation near the boundary. J Hydrol 565:474–488Google Scholar
  23. Kilgour DM, Hipel KW, Fang LP (1987) The graph model for conflicts. Automatica 23(1):41–55Google Scholar
  24. Kuang H, Bashar MA, Hipel KW et al (2015) Grey-based preference in a graph model for conflict resolution with multiple decision makers. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst Hum 45(9):1254–1267Google Scholar
  25. Kumar A, Sah B, Singh AR et al (2017) A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renew Sust Energ Rev 69:596–609Google Scholar
  26. Li MN, Zhang LL (2014) Haze in China: current and future challenges. Environ Pollut 189:85–86Google Scholar
  27. Li X, Qiao YB, Zhu JM et al (2017) The “APEC blue” endeavor: Causal effects of air pollution regulation on air quality in China. J Clean Prod 168:1381–1388Google Scholar
  28. Li RB, Jiang ZQ, Ji CM et al (2018a) An improved risk-benefit collaborative grey target decision model and its application in the decision making of load adjustment schemes. Energy 156:387–400Google Scholar
  29. Li CM, Wang HX, Xie XQ et al (2018b) Tiered transferable pollutant pricing for cooperative control of air quality to alleviate cross-regional air pollution in China. Atmos Pollut Res 9(5):857–863Google Scholar
  30. Lin H, Wang ZJ (2017) Linguistic multi-attribute group decision making with risk preferences and its use in low-carbon tourism destination selection. Int J Environ Res Public Health 14(9):1078Google Scholar
  31. Liu SF, Lin Y (2006) Grey information: theory and practical applications. Springer Science & Business Media Ch2:23-26Google Scholar
  32. Liu S F, et al. (2018) Grey system theory and its application (eighth edition). China Science Publishing & Media Ch1:11-12Google Scholar
  33. Liu Y, Du JL, Wang YH (2019) An improved grey group decision-making approach. Appl Soft Comput 76:78–88Google Scholar
  34. Lotfalipour MR, Falahi MA, Bastam M (2013) Prediction of CO2 emissions in Iran using Grey and ARIMA models. Int J Energy Econ Policy 3(3):229–237Google Scholar
  35. Lu ZN, Chen HY, Hao Y et al (2017) The dynamic relationship between environmental pollution, economic development and public health: evidence from China. J Clean Prod 166:134–147Google Scholar
  36. Lyu XP, Zeng LW, Guo H et al (2017) Evaluation of the effectiveness of air pollution control measures in Hong Kong. Environ Pollut 220:87–94Google Scholar
  37. Mao WX, Luo D, Sun HF (2017) A multi-scale extended grey target decision method that considers the value distribution information of grey numbers. Grey Systems: Theory and Application 7(1):97–110Google Scholar
  38. Mohammadi H, Farahani FV, Noroozi M et al (2017) Green supplier selection by developing a new group decision-making method under type 2 fuzzy uncertainty. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 93(1-4):1443–1462Google Scholar
  39. Montajabiha M (2016) An extended PROMETHE II multi-criteria group decision making technique based on intuitionistic fuzzy logic for sustainable energy planning. Group Decis Negot 25(2):221–244Google Scholar
  40. Moridi P, Atabi F, Nouri J et al (2017) Selection of optimized air pollutant filtration technologies for petrochemical industries through multiple-attribute decision-making. J Environ Manag 197:456–463Google Scholar
  41. Obeidi A, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2002) Canadian bulk water exports: analyzing the sun belt conflict using the graph model for conflict resolution. Knowledge, Technology & Policy 14(4):145–163Google Scholar
  42. Pai TY, Hanaki K, Ho HH et al (2007) Using grey system theory to evaluate transportation effects on air quality trends in Japan. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 12(3):158–166Google Scholar
  43. Pan YP, Wang YS, Zhang JK et al (2016) Redefining the importance of nitrate during haze pollution to help optimize an emission control strategy. Atmos Environ 141:197–202Google Scholar
  44. Philpot S, Hipel K, Johnson P (2016) Strategic analysis of a water rights conflict in the south western United States. J Environ Manag 180:247–256Google Scholar
  45. Qiu XZ, Zhu Y, Jang C et al (2015) Development of an integrated policy making tool for assessing air quality and human health benefits of air pollution control. Front Environ Sci Eng China 9(6):1056–1065Google Scholar
  46. Rêgo LC, dos Santos AM (2015) Probabilistic preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst Hum 45(4):595–608Google Scholar
  47. Rêgo LC, Vieira GIA (2017) Symmetric sequential stability in the graph model for conflict resolution with multiple decision makers. Group Decis Negot 26(4):775–792Google Scholar
  48. Requia WJ, Roig HL, Koutrakis P et al (2016) Mapping alternatives for public policy decision making related to human exposures from air pollution sources in the Federal District, Brazil. Land Use Policy 59:375–385Google Scholar
  49. Rodriguez RM, Martinez L, Herrera F (2012) Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 20(1):109–119Google Scholar
  50. Soltani A, Sadiq R, Hewage K (2016) Selecting sustainable waste-to-energy technologies for municipal solid waste treatment: A game theory approach for group decision-making. J Clean Prod 113:388–399Google Scholar
  51. Song CB, Wu L, Xie YC et al (2017) Air pollution in China: status and spatiotemporal variations. Environ Pollut 227:334–347Google Scholar
  52. Stern DI, Zha DL (2016) Economic growth and particulate pollution concentrations in China. Environ Econ Policy Stud 18(3):327–338Google Scholar
  53. Sun J, Wu FK, Hu B et al (2016) VOC characteristics, emissions and contributions to SOA formation during hazy episodes. Atmos Environ 141:560–570Google Scholar
  54. Taravatrooy N, Nikoo MR, Adamowski JF et al (2019) Fuzzy-based conflict resolution management of groundwater in-situ bioremediation under hydrogeological uncertainty. J Hydrol 571:376–389Google Scholar
  55. Taylan O, Kaya D, Demirbas A (2016) An integrated multi attribute decision model for energy efficiency processes in petrochemical industry applying fuzzy set theory. Energy Convers Manag 117:501–512Google Scholar
  56. The State Council of the People’s Republic of China (2018) State council on comprehensively strengthening ecological environment protection and resolutely doing a good job in pollution prevention and control. http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2018-06/24/content_5300953.htm. Accessed 24 Dec 2018
  57. Tian ZP, Wang J, Wang JQ et al (2017) Simplified neutrosophic linguistic multi-criteria group decision-making approach to green product development. Group Decis Negot 26(3):597–627Google Scholar
  58. Torra V (2010) Hesitant fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst 25(6):529–539Google Scholar
  59. Voorhees AS, Wang J, Wang C et al (2014) Public health benefits of reducing air pollution in Shanghai: a proof-of-concept methodology with application to BenMAP. Sci Total Environ 485:396–405Google Scholar
  60. Wan SP, Li SQ, Dong JY (2018) A three-phase method for Pythagorean fuzzy multi-attribute group decision making and application to haze management. Comput Ind Eng 123:348–363Google Scholar
  61. Wang SX, Hao JM (2012) Air quality management in China: issues, challenges, and options. J Environ Sci 24(1):2–13Google Scholar
  62. Wei YG, Gu J, Wang HW et al (2018) Uncovering the culprits of air pollution: evidence from China's economic sectors and regional heterogeneities. J Clean Prod 171:1481–1493Google Scholar
  63. Winston WL, Goldberg JB (1994) Operations research application and algorithms (Vol. 3). Belmont^ eCalif Calif: Thomson/Brooks/Cole 562-567Google Scholar
  64. World Health Organization (2018) How air pollution is destroying our health. https://www.who.int/air-pollution/news-and-events/how-air-pollution-is-destroying-our-healh . Accessed 24 Dec 2018
  65. Wu D, Xu Y, Zhang SQ (2015) Will joint regional air pollution control be more cost-effective? An empirical study of China’s Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. J Environ Manag 149:27–36Google Scholar
  66. Xi FM, Geng Y, Chen XD et al (2011) Contributing to local policy making on GHG emission reduction through inventorying and attribution: a case study of Shenyang, China. Energy Policy 39(10):5999–6010Google Scholar
  67. Xia MM, Xu Z (2011) Hesitant fuzzy information aggregation in decision making. Int J Approx Reason 52(3):395–407Google Scholar
  68. Xu Z, Xia MM (2011) Distance and similarity measures for hesitant fuzzy sets. Inf Sci 181(11):2128–2138Google Scholar
  69. Yan SL, Liu SF, Fang ZG (2014) Method of determining weights of decision makers and attributes for group decision making with interval grey numbers. Systems Engineering - Theory & Practice 34(9):2372–2378Google Scholar
  70. Yousefi S, Hipel KW, Hegazy T (2010) Attitude-based strategic negotiation for conflict management in construction projects. Proj Manag J 41(4):99–107Google Scholar
  71. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353Google Scholar
  72. Zeng L, Dong X, Zeng SY et al (2015) Post-evaluation of a water pollution control plan: methodology and case study. Front Environ Sci Eng 9(4):712–724Google Scholar
  73. Zeng XT, Tong YF, Cui L et al (2017) Population-production-pollution nexus based air pollution management model for alleviating the atmospheric crisis in Beijing, China. J Environ Manag 197:507–521Google Scholar
  74. Zhang HF, Wang SX, Hao JM et al (2016) Air pollution and control action in Beijing. J Clean Prod 112:1519–1527Google Scholar
  75. Zheng SM, Yi HT, Li H (2015) The impacts of provincial energy and environmental policies on air pollution control in China. Renew Sust Energ Rev 49:386–394Google Scholar
  76. Zhong Y (2015) Local government and politics in China: challenges from below: challenges from below. Routledge, New York.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315702780

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jun-Liang Du
    • 1
  • Yong Liu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jeffrey Yi-Lin Forrest
    • 1
  1. 1.School of BusinessJiangnan UniversityWuxiChina

Personalised recommendations