Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):477–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):91–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):249–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 115:45–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 123:606–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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):95–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):2494–2504

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 10:11–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):45–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. This research is financially supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the City of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Civil Engineering, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada

    Kejiang Zhang, Cheryl Kluck & Gopal Achari

Authors
  1. Kejiang Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cheryl Kluck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gopal Achari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gopal Achari.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhang, K., Kluck, C. & Achari, G. A Comparative Approach for Ranking Contaminated Sites Based on the Risk Assessment Paradigm Using Fuzzy PROMETHEE. Environmental Management 44, 952–967 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9368-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9368-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation