4.7 Article

Evaluating environmental quality in Rujigou coalfield, China, using analytic hierarchy process

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 30, 期 1, 页码 1841-1853

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-22340-1

关键词

Multi-criteria decision analysis; AHP; Environmental impacts; Coal mining; Rujigou coalfield; Photo tour

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coal mining activities have significant environmental impacts, particularly on air quality. This study used the analytic hierarchy process to evaluate the environmental quality of the Rujigou coalfield. The results showed that mining activities had the greatest impact on air quality.
Coal is the major fossil fuel used for power generation. Coal mining activities lead to environmental changes to a large extent, such as degradation in the quality of air, water, and soil, changes in landform, land use/land cover, and vegetation distribution. Evaluating the environmental quality is therefore essential to study the nature and impact of mining activities on the environment. The present study attempts to use the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to assess the environmental quality of Rujigou coalfield that lacked previous such analysis. The criteria used for evaluation were selected through a literature review and extensive field survey. A photo tour of the study area shows the current ground conditions. Weights were assigned to these criteria based on expert opinions, recommendations from published literature, and field investigation. The results indicate that mining activities in the study region most significantly impact the air quality, followed by soil, water, landform, and vegetation. The knowledge of environmental quality can forewarn policymakers and mine managers about impending environmental problems and improve their ability to manage and resolve them. Moreover, the systematic methodological process described in this research can be applied to any study area with similar features to the one investigated in this paper.

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

4.7
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