4.8 Article

Optimizing the Recovery Efficiency of Finnish Oil Combating Vessels in the Gulf of Finland Using Bayesian Networks

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 47, 期 4, 页码 1792-1799

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es303634f

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Regional Development Fund
  2. Central Baltic INTERREG IV A Programme
  3. Regional Council of Kymenlaakso
  4. City of Kotka
  5. Kotka-Hamina Regional Development Company Cursor
  6. Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment of Southwest Finland (VARELY)
  7. Port of Hamina
  8. Finstaship
  9. Machine Technology Center Turku Ltd
  10. Kotka Maritime Research Centre
  11. Kymenlaakso University of Applied Sciences
  12. Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute
  13. Finnish Environment Institute
  14. Tallinn University of Technology
  15. University of Tartu

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oil transport has greatly increased in the Gulf of Finland over the years, and risks of an oil accident occurring have risen. Thus, an effective oil combating strategy is needed. We developed a Bayesian Network (BN) to examine the recovery efficiency and optimal disposition of the Finnish oil combating vessels in the Gulf of Finland (GoF), Eastern Baltic Sea. Four alternative home harbors, five accident points, and ten oil combating vessels were included in the model to find the optimal disposition policy that would maximize the recovery efficiency. With this composition, the placement of the oil combating vessels seems not to have a significant effect on the recovery efficiency. The process seems to be strongly controlled by certain random factors independent of human action, e.g. wave height and stranding time of the oil. Therefore, the success of oil combating is rather uncertain, so it is also important to develop activities that aim for preventing accidents. We found that the model developed is suitable for this type of multidecision optimization. The methodology, results, and practices are further discussed.

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

4.8
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