4.7 Article

The design and implementation of risk assessment model for hazard installations based on AHP-FCE method: A case study of Nansi Lake Basin

Journal

ECOLOGICAL INFORMATICS
Volume 36, Issue -, Pages 162-171

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2015.11.010

Keywords

Nansi Lake Basin; Hazard installation; Risk assessment; Analytical hierarchy process-fuzzy comprehensive evaluation

Categories

Funding

  1. Project of Shandong Province Environmental Protection Bureau [SDHBPJ-ZB-09]
  2. China National Key Program for Water Pollution Control [2009ZX07210-007]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this paper, the combined analytical hierarchy process fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (AHP-FCE) model was built to assess the risk for hazard installations of the Nansi Lake Basin. A detailed analysis was carried out showing the relationships between the risk index and risk factors in the Nansi Lake Basin of China. To enhance the accuracy and applicability of assessing the risk, which could be influenced by the sampled human factor, an analytical mathematic method was used to show the relationship between the statistic law and the comprehensive index. The AHP-FCE model combined AHP's capabilities of multi-object and multi-rule decision with FCE's advantages in uncertainty processing. The fuzzy treatment scheme and fuzzy operation strategy were both optimized and ameliorated, so that the model could achieve the flexibility and reliability to identify and dynamically evaluate hazard installations. In this paper, the analysis of the survey data taken from the Nansi Lake Basin, scientific theory, validity in scheme, and operating feasibility of the model were validated. It is the hope that the combined AHP-FCE model will provide valuable information pertaining to environment and hazard installation risk assessments for basin systems. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available