Spatial-Quantitative Environmental Assessment of Three SHIRAZ Alternatives Railway with Enhanced YAPP-FAHP Method

Subject Areas : Environmental Impact Assessment

Jahanbakhsh Balist ¹ ( Ph.D. in environmental planning, university of Tehran )
Faeze Chehrazar ² ( Ph.D. student of environmental planning, university of Tehran )
Hamid Reza jafari Jafari ³ ( Professor of environmental planning, management, and education, university of Tehran )

Received: 2018-02-12 Accepted : 2019-08-24 Published : 2022-03-21

Keywords: quantitative- spatial, risk assessment, environmental assessment, YAPP-FAHP,

Abstract :

Background and Aim: Rail safety is a very complex subject, with various factors involved. Many of the risk assessment techniques currently used in railroads are routine techniques. In this study, the YAPP upgraded method was used. Method: In this method, three indicators are used to estimate the risk of each alternative. The risk associated with the length of each railway alternative, the risk of population density and the number of residents around each alternative, and the risks associated with the geological situation and the milestones of each alternative. To complete the evaluation of options, the FAHP method is used to prioritize them based on the YAPP indexes and sub-indicators. Findings: In this study, there are three alternatives for Shiraz railway, one, Kazeroon-Farashband, Second, Kazeroon-Quar and Shiraz-Noorabad. The study results show that the third alternative is the safest alternate with a risk value of 127.779 compared to two other alternatives with risk values ​​of 277 and 298. Based on the results of the FAHP prioritization, the third option was also identified as the preferred option.  Discussion and Conclusion: The YAPP method, taking into account natural and human factors in assessing the risk of railroads, is an efficient method that can be used to select optimal and safe paths in the design and planning phase of the projects. Using the multi-criteria decision-making methods along with the YAPP method, the choice of the final option is made easier and more scientifically.

References:

• 1- Guillermo Zúííiga-Gutiérreza, Joaquín Arroyo-cabrales, Carlos Lechuga, Alfredo o r t e g a-Rubio, 2002, Environmental quantitative assessment of two alternative routes for a gas pipeline in Campeche, Mexico, Landscape and Urban Planning 59 (2002) 181-186.


• 2- De Jongh, P., 1988. Uncertainty in EIA. In: Wathem, P. (Ed.), Environment lmpact Assessment: Theory and Practice. Routledge, NY, USA, pp. 60-78.


• 3- Jabal Ameli, M. 2016. Project risk rating using multi-criteria decision-making process, publications of the Faculty of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology. (In persian).


• 4- Wei, Z. & Luxin, N. 2007. Qinghai- Xizang Railroad Construction in Permafrost Region. Shanghai University Publish. 324pp.


• 5- Stephen, S. 2006. Managing Industrial Risk- Having a Tested and Proven System to Prevent and Assess Risk, Hazardous materials Journal: Springer, vol: 13, No.3, pp: 55- 67.


• 6- Shuang, C. & Baker, J. W. 2008. Railway Risk Assessment-The Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Approaches a case study of Shunting at Waterloo Depot, Rail and Rapid Transit Publish., Quebec, Canada. 258pp.


• 7- Tarek, M. & Amer, H. 2008. Assessing Risk and Uncertainty Inherent in Chinese Highway Projects Using AHP. Project Management Bulletin, Beijing, China.384pp.


• 8- Sarkis, J. & Talluri, S. 2004. Evaluating and Selecting E- Commerce Software and Communication Systems for a Supply Chain. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol: 159. pp: 318-329.


• 9- Wun, Q. 2004. Risk assessment of earth fractures by constructing an intrinsic vulnerability map, a specific vulnerability map, and a hazard map, using yuci city , shanxi china as an example , Environmental geology.