نوع مقاله: علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشکده مهندسی پیشرفت، دانشگاه علم و صنعت، تهران، ایران

2 دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

معدن و صنایع معدنی ازجمله مواردی است که همواره یکی از منابع اصلی نگرانی‌های زیست‌محیطی برای جوامع بشری بوده است. فرآیند استخراج و فرآوری زغال‌سنگ با توجه به ماهیت آن پتانسیل بسیار بالایی در ایجاد انواع مختلف آلودگی‌های زیست‌محیطی دارد. در این پژوهش کارخانه زغال شویی البرز شرقی در ایران و تأثیرات آن بر روی محیط‌زیست با استفاده از روش‌های مختلف ارزیابی اثرات زیست‌محیطی بررسی شده است. در ابتدا فهرستی از فعالیت‌های کارخانه و اثرات زیستمحیطی ناشی از این فعالیت‌ها تهیه گردیده و در ادامه با استفاده از سه روش ماتریس فولچی اصلاح‌شده، روش تحلیل سلسله مراتبی و ماتریس سریع یا پاستاکیا اثرات زیست‌محیطی کارخانه سنجیده شده است. برآیند نظر کارشناسان نشان داد که پساب کارخانه، انتشار آلاینده ها به هوا و نشت آلاینده ها از تیلینگ به ترتیب با امتیازهای 8، 7.9 و 7.9 مهمترین فعالیت های تأثیرگذار زیست محیطی کارخانه می باشند. تفاوت پاسخ های روش های مختلف ارزیابی اثرات زیست محیطی همواره یکی از چالش های این موضوع بوده است. در پژوهش حاضر تلاش شده است تا با استفاده از استراتژی‌های ادغام مختلف مانند بوردا، کوپلند، کمنی، کوهلر و روش‌ ابداعیDirect Ranking Strategy (DRS) ، نتایج روشهای مختلف تجمیع شود. استفاده از روش ترکیبی ارزیابی اثرات زیست‌محیطی (Coupled Environmental Impact Assessment – C-EIA) به منظور تجمیع روش های مختلف نشان داد که چهار مؤلفه «آب‌های زیرزمینی»، «چشم‌انداز منطقه»، «خاک منطقه» و «بوم‌شناسی» با حدود مقدار 0.12 به ترتیب بحرانی‌ترین مؤلفه‌های محیط‌زیستی برای این کارخانه هستند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Using Dodgson, Kemeny, and Kohler Prioritization Strategies to integrate the Results of Different Environmental Impact Assessment methods

نویسندگان [English]

  • sajjad mohebali 1
  • Soroush Maghsoudy 2

1 School of progress engineering, university of science & technology, Tehran, Iran

2 PhD Candidate

چکیده [English]

Mining and mineral industries are one of the main sources of environmental concerns for human societies. The process of mining and mineral processing of coal due to its nature and mechanism, has a high potential of creating different types of environmental pollutions. In this study, the Alborz Sharghi coal washing plant in Iran and its effects on the environment have been investigated using different environmental impact assessment methods (EIA). Initially, a list of plant activities and the environmental components have been prepared and after that three EIA methods include modified Folchi, AHP and RIAM matrix, have been used. Average results of expert suggestions show that factory waste water, toxic gases ans leaching from tailings with the score 8,7.9 and 7.9 respectively are the most hurmful activities of the company. The variety of the results of different EIA methods has always been one of the most significant challenges of the Environmental impact assessment. In current study, the results of various EIA methods have been coupled with each other by using some integration strategies like Borda, Copeland, Kemeny and Kohler. A novel strategy called DRS (Direct Ranking Strategy) have been developed in current research. The use of coupled environmental impact assessment (C-EIA) method to aggregate various EIA methods showed that the four components of "Groundwater", "Landscape", "Soil of the area" and "Ecology" are respectively the most critical environmental components of the Alborz sharghi coal washing plant.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Coal washing plant
  • C-EIA method
  • integrated strategies
  • Environmental impact assessment
  • Alborz Sharghi

منابع
1. R. Ramanathan, “A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment.,” J. Environ. Manage., vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 27–35, Sep. 2001.
مسائل اجتماعی
آرامش
کیفیت هوا
کاربری زمین
سلامتی و ایمنی انسان
آبهای سطحی
بوم شناسی
خاک منطقه
چشم انداز منطقه
آبهای زیرزمینی
» مهندسی معدن « تلفیق نتایج حاصل از روش های مختلف ارزیابی اثرات زیست محیطی با اولویت بندی داجسون، کمنی و کوهلر نشریه علمی پژوهشی
10
2. A. M. da Silva Dias, A. Fonseca, and A. P. Paglia, “Technical quality of fauna monitoring programs in the environmental impact assessments of large mining projects in southeastern Brazil,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 650, pp. 216–223, Feb. 2019.
3. P.-S. Ashofteh, O. Bozorg-Haddad, and H. A. Loáiciga, “Multi-Criteria Environmental Impact Assessment of Alternative Irrigation Networks with an Adopted Matrix-Based Method,” Water Resour. Manag., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 903–928, 2017.
4. L. Shen, K. Muduli, and A. Barve, “Developing a sustainable development framework in the context of mining industries: AHP approach,” Resour. Policy, vol. 46, pp. 15–26, 2015.
5. Y. Yu, S.-E. Chen, K.-Z. Deng, P. Wang, and H.-D. Fan, “Subsidence mechanism and stability assessment methods for partial extraction mines for sustainable development of mining cities—A review,” Sustainability, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 113, 2018.
6. L. B. Leopold, F. E. Clarke, and B. B. Hanshaw, A procedure for evaluating environmental impact, vol. 28, no. 2. US Dept. of the Interior, 1971.
7. [7] C. M. R. Pastakia and A. Jensen, “The rapid impact assessment matrix (RIAM) for EIA,” Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 461–482, 1998.
8. R. Gilbuena Jr, A. Kawamura, R. Medina, H. Amaguchi, N. Nakagawa, and D. Du Bui, “Environmental impact assessment of structural flood mitigation measures by a rapid impact assessment matrix (RIAM) technique: A case study in Metro Manila, Philippines,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 456, pp. 137–147, 2013.
9. B. Robu, O. Jitar, C. Teodosiu, S.-A. Strungaru, M. Nicoara, and G. Plavan, “ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND RISK ASSESSMENT OF THE MAIN POLLUTION SOURCES FROM THE ROMANIAN BLACK SEA COAST.,” Environ. Eng. Manag. J., vol. 14, no. 2, 2015.
10. S. Suthar and A. Sajwan, “Rapid impact assessment matrix (RIAM) analysis as decision tool to select new site for municipal solid waste disposal: A case study of Dehradun city, India,” Sustain. Cities Soc., vol. 13, pp. 12–19, 2014.
11. T. T. Thomas, C. D. Sony, and E. C. Kuruvila, “Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment of Eco-tourism in Pookote Lake, Wayanad,” Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol., 2017.
12. Y.-M. Wang, J.-B. Yang, and D.-L. Xu, “Environmental impact assessment using the evidential reasoning approach,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 174, no. 3, pp. 1885–1913, Nov. 2006.
13. X. Deng, Y. Hu, Y. Deng, and S. Mahadevan, “Environmental impact assessment based on D numbers,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 635–643, Feb. 2014.
14. N. Wang and D. Wei, “A modified D numbers methodology for environmental impact assessment,” Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 653–669, 2018.
15. A. Saffari, M. Ataei, F. Sereshki, and M. Naderi, “Environmental impact assessment (EIA) by using the Fuzzy Delphi Folchi (FDF) method (case study: Shahrood cement plant, Iran),” Environ. Dev. Sustain., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 817–860, Apr. 2019.
16. F. S. Namin, H. Ghafari, and A. Dianati, “New Model for Environmental Impact Assessment of Tunneling Projects,” J. Environ. Prot. (Irvine,. Calif)., vol. 05, no. 06, pp. 530–550, 2014.
17. B. Khoshnevisan, S. Rafiee, M. Omid, H. Mousazadeh, and S. Clark, “Environmental impact assessment of tomato and cucumber cultivation in greenhouses using life cycle assessment and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 73, pp. 183–192, 2014.
18. M. Manfredi and G. Vignali, “Life cycle assessment of a packaged tomato puree: a comparison of environmental impacts produced by different life cycle phases,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 73, pp. 275–284, 2014.
19. A. S. Aliyu, A. T. Ramli, and M. A. Saleh, “Environmental impact assessment of a new nuclear power plant (NPP) based on atmospheric dispersion modeling,” Stoch. Environ. Res. risk Assess., vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 1897–1911, 2014.
20. A. Fattahi Mejlej, B. Jodeiri Shokri, and M. Zare Naghadehi, “The flotation system optimization in Alborz-Sharghi coal washing plant; A laboratory study,” Int. J. Min. Geo-Engineering, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 19–32, 2015.
21. B. J. Shokri, F. D. Ardejani, and A.
» مهندسی معدن « سجاد محب علی، سروش مقصودی، فرامرز دولتی ارده جانی نشریه علمی پژوهشی
19
Moradzadeh, “Mapping the flow pathways and contaminants transportation around a coal washing plant using the VLF-EM, Geo-electrical and IP techniques—A case study, NE Iran,” Environ. Earth Sci., vol. 75, no. 1, p. 62, 2016.
22. B. J. Shokri, F. D. Ardejani, and H. Ramazi, “Environmental geochemistry and acid mine drainage evaluation of an abandoned coal waste pile at the Alborz-Sharghi coal washing plant, NE Iran,” Nat. Resour. Res., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 347–363, 2016.
23. R. Folchi, “Environmental impact statement for mining with explosives: a quantitative method,” in Proceedings of the annual conference on explosives and blasting technique, 2003, vol. 2, pp. 285–296.
24. M. Mirmohammadi, J. Gholamnejad, V. Fattahpour, P. Seyedsadri, and Y. Ghorbani, “Designing of an environmental assessment algorithm for surface mining projects,” J. Environ. Manage., vol. 90, no. 8, pp. 2422–2435, 2009.
25. T. L. Saaty, “The analytical hierarchy process, planning, priority,” Resour. Alloc. RWS Publ. USA, 1980.
26. T. L. Saaty, “How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 9–26, Sep. 1990.
27. A. M. Colman, “The likelihood of the Borda effect in small decision-making committees,” Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 50–56, 1980.
28. J. C. Borda, “Mémoire sur les élections au scrutin, Histoire de l’Académie royale des sciences pour 1781,” Paris (English Transl. by Grazia, A. 1953. Isis 44), 1784.
29. W. W. Wu, “Beyond Travel & Tourism competitiveness ranking using DEA, GST, ANN and Borda count,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 12974–12982, 2011.
30. C. Klamler, “On the Closeness Aspect of
Three Voting Rules: Borda – Copeland – Maximin,” Gr. Decis. Negot., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 233–240, May 2005.
31. C. Lamboray, “A comparison between the prudent order and the ranking obtained with Borda’s, Copeland’s, Slater’s and Kemeny’s rules,” Math. Soc. Sci., vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 1–16, Jul. 2007.
32. A. H. Copeland, “A ‘reasonable’social welfare function. Seminar on applications of mathematics to social sciences,” in University of Michigan Seminar on Applications of Mathematics to the Social Sciences, 1951.
33. C. Dodgson, “A method of taking votes on more than two issues,” The theory of committees and elections, 1876.
34. T. C. Ratliff, “A comparison of Dodgson’s method and Kemeny’s rule,” Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18, no. 1. pp. 79–89, 2001.
35. J. G. Kemeny, “Mathematics without numbers,” Daedalus, vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 577–591, 1959.
36. G. Köhler, “Choix multicritère et analyse algébrique de données ordinales.” Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble-INPG; Université Joseph-Fourier …, 1978.
37. C. Lamboray, “Prudent ranking rules: theoretical contributions and applications.” University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 2007.
38. K. J. Arrow and H. Raynaud, “Social choice and multicriterion decision-making,” MIT Press Books, vol. 1, 1986.
39. A. Darmann, J. Grundner, and C. Klamler, “Election outcomes under different ways to announce preferences: an analysis of the 2015 parliament election in the Austrian federal state of Styria,” Public Choice, vol. 173, no. 1–2, pp. 201–216, Oct. 2017.
40. T. C. Ratliff, “Lewis carroll, voting, and the taxicab metric,” Coll. Math. J., vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 303–311, 2010.