4.2 Article

An Inexact Fuzzy-Chance-Constrained Air Quality Management Model

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
Volume 60, Issue 7, Pages 805-819

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3155/1047-3289.60.7.805

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. MOST [2005CB724200, 2006CB403307]
  2. Special Research Grant for University Doctoral Programs [20070027029]
  3. Canadian Water Network under the Networks of Centers of Excellence
  4. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Regional air pollution is a major concern for almost every country because it not only directly relates to economic development, but also poses significant threats to environment and public health. In this study, an inexact fuzzy-chance-constrained air quality management model (IFAMM) was developed for regional air quality management under uncertainty. IFAMM was formulated through integrating interval linear programming (ILP) within a fuzzy-chance-constrained programming (FCCP) framework and could deal with uncertainties expressed as not only possibilistic distributions but also discrete intervals in air quality management systems. Moreover, the constraints with fuzzy variables could be satisfied at different confidence levels such that various solutions with different risk and cost considerations could be obtained. The developed model was applied to a hypothetical case of regional air quality management. Six abatement technologies and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission trading under uncertainty were taken into consideration. The results demonstrated that IFAMM could help decision-makers generate cost-effective air quality management patterns, gain in-depth insights into effects of the uncertainties, and analyze tradeoffs between system economy and reliability. The results also implied that the trading scheme could achieve lower total abatement cost than a nontrading one.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available