An investigation on PROMETHEE and ELECTRE outranking methods in environmental decision-making of oil and petrochemical industries

Subject Areas : Water and Environment

Solmaz Amoushahi ¹ , Farhad Nejadkoorki ² , Sharareh Pourebrahim ³

1 - MSC, Department of Environment, Natural Resources and Desert Studies Faculty, Yazd University
2 - Associate Professor, Department of Environment, Natural Resources and Desert Studies Faculty, Yazd University
3 - Assistant Professor, Department of Environment, Natural Resources Faculty, Tehran University

Received: 2014-04-05 Accepted : 2014-07-27 Published : 2015-06-22

Keywords: Environmental Decision Making, Multiple Criteria Decision Mak, Oil and petrochemical industri, Promethee, Electre,

Abstract :

Nowadays one of the most important global issues is environmental problems that can cause harm to human and other organisms. This problem is caused due to various factors like pollutants and other environmental disturbances. Because of these factors we need to find strategies for solving such problems. One of the most important problems in the world is the pollution produced by different industries like oil industry that has a significant role in the nations economic and progress. There are many solutions and methods for surveying and mitigating the industries effects.Multiple Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) is one of these methods that order alternatives based on their importance. Ranking problems consist in rank ordering of all alternatives from the worst to the best, looking at their evaluations on the considered criteria.In present study two more important outranking methods (PROMETHEE and ELECTRE) were assessed and their advantages and disadvantages were surveyed. Also a study was done in Arak petrochemical industry by PROMETHEE method as an case study and construction phase alternatives were ranked by mentioned method.Case study investigation and review on other studies showed that the PROMEHTEE method because of some features like being easy to use, understandable, Ability to cope with uncertainty, importance the decision makers, ability of visual representation, validity and flexibility is more applicable than ELECTRE.So the suggested method can be applied for making environmental decisions and also oil and petrochemical industries that simultaneously deal with qualitative and quantitative data and uncertainty. The researchers hope that it would have desirable results

References:

1. جعفری. ح، 1380، کاربرد سیستماتیک مدل تخریب در ارزیابی اثرات توسعه بر روی حوضه آبخیز سد لتیان، مجله محیط­شناسی، شماره 27، ص 109-120.
   
   
   1.  Kiker, G.A., Bridges, T.A., Varghese, A., Seager, T.P., Linkov, I., 2005. Application of multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integrated Environmental Assessment Management 1 (2), 95–108.
   
   


2.  ریچاردز ب. شپارد، 1390، ارزیابی اثرات توسعه با منطق فازی، ترجمه عبدالرسول سلمان ماهینی، مهر­مهدیس، چاپ اول.


3. کیالان. ن، 1392، ارزیابی اثرات تجمعی(CEA) توسعه صنایع پتروشیمی منطقه ویژه اقتصادی ماهشهر، پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه یزد.
   
   
   1. Kiker, G. A., Bridges, T. S., Varghese, A., Seager, T. P., & Linkovjj, I. (2005). Application of multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 1(2), 95–108.
   
   
   2.  Harris, R. (1998) Introduction to Decision Making, VirtualSalt.
   
   
   3. Baker, D., Bridges, D., Hunter, R., Johnson, G., Krupa, J., Murphy, J. and Sorenson, K. (2002) Guidebook to DecisionMaking Methods, WSRC-IM-2002-00002, Department of Energy, USA. http://emiweb.
   
   
   4.  UK DTLR (2001) Multi Criteria Analysis: A Manual, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, UK.
   
   
   5. Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H. (1976) Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Performances and Value Trade-Offs, Wiley, New York.
   
   
   6.  Goicoechea et al., 1982. Preference to the special issue on multi-criterion decision making with engineering applications. Applied Mathematics and Computation. Volume 54. 99- 109.
   
   
   7. Tecle, 1992. Interactive multi-objective programming for forest resources management. Applied Mathematics and Computation. Volume 63. 75- 93.
   
   
   8. Hobbs, A. 1986. An interactive integrated multi-objective optimization approach for quasiconvex utility functions. Applied Mathematics and Computation. Volume 54. Pp 241- 257.
   
   
   9. G. Kabir., R. Sultana Sumi., 2014., Power substation location selection using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and PROMETHEE: A case study from Bangladesh., Energy XXX., 1- 14.
   
   
   10. X. Xing- Ming ., P. An- Hua., 2013., Material selection using PROMETHEE combined with analytic network process under hybrid environment., Material  and Design., 47., 643- 652.
   
   
   11.  M. Herva., E. Roca., 2013., Review of combined approaches and multi- criteria analysis for corporate environmental evaluation., Journal of Cleaner Production., 39., 355- 371.
   
   
   12. A. Hatami- Marbini., M. Tavana., M. Moradi., F. Kangi., 2013., A fuzzy group method for safty and health assessment in hazardous waste recycling facilities., Safety Science., 51., 414- 426.
   
   
   13.  A. Hatami- Marbini., M. Tavana., 2011. An extension of the ELECTRE I method for group decision-making under a fuzzy environment. Omega. 39., 373- 386.
   
   
   14. Ch. Achilas., Ch. Vlachokostas., N. Moussiopoulos., G. Banias., 2011., Prioritize strategies to confront environmental deterioration in urban areas: Multi-criteria assessment of public opinion and experts views., Cities., 28., 414-  423.
   
   
   15. D. Nikolic., I. Jovanovic., I. Mihajlovic., Z. Zivkovic., 2009., Multi- criteria ranking of copper concentrates according to their quality- An element of environmental management in the vicinity of copper- Smelting complex in Bor, Serbia., Journal of Environmental management., 91., 509- 515.
   
   
   16. F. Cavallaro., L. Ciraolo., 2005., A multi-criteria approach to evaluate wind energy plants on an Italian island., Energy Policy., 33., 235- 234.
   
   
   17.  Al- Rashdan, D., Al- Kloub, B., Angela, D., Al- Shemmeri, T., 1999., Environmental impact assessment and ranking the environmental projects in Jordan., European Jornal of Operational Research., 118., pp 30- 45.
   
   
   18. Goicoechea et al, 1992. The use of multi- criteria decision making methods in the integrated assessment of climate change: implications for IA practitioners. Energy Policy. Volume 25. 345- 356.
   
   
   19. Hobbs, 1992. Building public confidence in energy planning: a multimethod MCDM approach to demand- side planning at BC gas. Socio- Economic Planning Sciences. Volume 37. 289- 316.
   
   
   20. Duckstein, I et al, 1982. Multicriterion analysis of the water allocation conflict in the Upper Rio Grande basin. Applied Mathematics and computation, Volume 17. Pp 245- 265.
   
   


4. خدابخشی. ب، جعفری. ح، 1389، کاربرد مدل تصمیم­گیری چندمعیاره ELECTRE- TRI در ارزیابی اثرات زیست­محیطی طرح­های توسعه منابع آب، مطالعه موردی: سد و شبکه آبیاری و زهکشی اردبیل، مجله آب و فاضلاب، شماره 3، ص 64-74.
   
   
   1. Nemhauser, G.L., Rinnoy Kan, A.H.G. and Todd, M.J. (1989) Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science: Volume 1 Optimization, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
   
   
   2.  Steuer, R. E. (1986) Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory, Computation and Application, Wiley, New York.
   
   
   3. Roy, B. (1968) "Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiple (la méthode electre)., RAIRO, 2, 57-7.
   
   
   4. Vincke, P. (1992) Multi-criteria Decision-Aid, John Wiley, Chichester.
   
   
   5. Figueira, J., Greco, S. and Ehrgott, M. (Eds.) (2004) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, springer, New York.
   
   
   6. Brans, J.P. and Vincke, Ph. (1985) "A preference ranking organization method", Management Science, 31, 647-656.
   
   
   7.  Brans, J.P., Vincke, Ph. and Marechal, B. (1986) "How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEEmethod", European Journal of Operational Research, 24, 228- 238.
   
   
   8.  Brans, J.-P. And Mareschal, B. (1994) .The PROMCALC & GAIA decision support system for multicriteria decision aid., Decision Support Systems, 12, 297-310.
   
   
   9. Mareschal, B. (1988) .Weight stability intervals in multicriteria decision aid., European Journal of Operational Research, 33, 54-64.