4.6 Article

A Two-Stage Fuzzy Chance-Constrained Model for Solid Waste Allocation Planning

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATICS
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 101-110

出版社

INT SOC ENVIRON INFORM SCI
DOI: 10.3808/jei.201400261

关键词

fuzzy version of the chance-constrained programming; mixed-integer programming; two-stage stochastic programming; solid waste management; uncertainty

资金

  1. Program for Innovative Research Team in University [IRT1127]
  2. 111 Project [B14008]
  3. Key Project of Chinese Ministry of Education [311 013]
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51208196]
  5. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [13QN26]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A two-stage double-sided fuzzy version of the chance-constrained mixed-integer programming (TDFCCMP) model was developed in this study for supporting municipal solid waste management under multiple uncertainties. TDFCCMP integrates the double-sided fuzzy version of the chance-constrained programming (DFCCP) model and the mixed-integer programming (MIP) model within a two-stage stochastic programming (TSP) framework. It could deal with possibilistic or probabilistic uncertainties and tackle complexities derived from capacity-expansion issues. A hypothetical long-term solid waste management problem was used to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed method. The results indicated that TDFCCMP was useful in assisting the decision makers analyze policy scenarios that were associated with economic penalties within a multi-stage and multi-period context. The model also allowed violation of system constraints at specified confidence-levels under two reliability conditions, leading to solutions with lower costs under acceptable magnitudes of system-failure risk. The generated solutions could help decision makers establish various waste-flow allocation patterns and capacity-expansion plans under complex uncertainties, and gain in-depth insights into the trade-offs between system economy and reliability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据