Providing a Hybrid Model for Environmental Risk Assessment in Mazandaran Province Using DEMATEL and Taguchi Loss Function

Document Type : Ecology

Authors

Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract

Environmental risk assessment (EAR) can be recognized as one of the important tools for the realization of sustainable development. The purpose of this research is to identify the types of environmental risks in Mazandaran province and provide a hybrid model in order to assess and prioritize them, which lead to better management of the environment hazards. In this research, 9 experienced manager from Mazandaran province's environmental protection agency and academic professors in this field were used as experts, and the Risk Breakdown structure (RBS) of environmental risk was defined based on their views at three levels. Then, using the DEMATEL technique, the importance of risk categories and their weight was determined. In the next step, criteria for risk assessment were identified and defined. Each risk was evaluated in each criterion based on the Taguchi Loss Function method, and their loss scores were calculated. According to the results,"cultural", "physico-chemical" and "economic" risk categories are more important than the others and affect them. Also,"Urban and Industrial Wastewater", "pest and disease of plants and animals", "excessive harvesting of forest and mineral resources", "discharge and disposal of wastes" and ... were considered as the most important environmental risks respectively.

Keywords


  1. Bryan Kethley, R., 2008. Using Taguchi Loss Function to Develop a single Objective Function in a Multi-Criteria Context: A Scheduling Example. International Journal of Information and management Sciences. Vol. 19, No. 4, pp: 589-600,
  2. Certa, A.; Carpitella, S.; Enea, M. and Micale, R., 2016. A multi criteria decision making approach to support the risk management: a case study. In Proceedings of 21st Summer School Francesco Turco.
  3. Davis, S., 2009. Becoming a knowledge-based business. International Journal of Technology Management. Vol. 14, pp: 60-73.
  4. Deloitte, M. and Touche, L.L.P., 2012. Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), Risk Assessment in Practice. pp: 2-3.
  5. Hillson, D., 1999. Developing effective risk responses. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 30th Annual Project Management Institute Seminars & Symposium.
  6. Lambert, J.H.; Haimes, Y.; Li, D.; Schooff, R. and Tulsiani, V., 2001. Identification, ranking, and management of risks in a major system acquisition, Reliability Engineering & System Safety. Vol. 72, No. 3, pp: 315-325.
  7. Lee, E.; Park, Y. and Shin, J.G., 2009. Large engineering project risk management using a Bayesian belief network. Expert Systems with Applications. Vol. 36, pp: 5880-5887.
  8. Liao, C.N. and Kao, H.P., 2010. Supplier selection model using Taguchi lossfunction, analytical hierarchy process and multi-choice goal programming. Computers & Industrial Engineering. Vol. 58, No. 4, pp: 571-577.
  9. Liua, S.Y.; Wanga, H.Q. and Lia, Y.L., 2012. Current Progress of Environmental Risk Assessment Research, Procedia Environmental Sciences. Vol. 13, pp: 1477-1483.
  10. Marhavilas, P.K.; Koulouriotis, D. and Gemeni, V., 2011. Risk analysis and assessment methodologies in the work sites: On a review, classification and comparative study of the scientific literature of the period, 2000-2009, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. pp: 477-523.
  11. Nieto-Morote, A. and Ruz-Vila, F., 2011. A fuzzy approach to construction project risk assessment. International Journal of Project Management. Vol. 29, No. 2, pp: 220-231.
  12. Topuz, E.; Talinli, I. and, Aydin, E., 2011. Integration of environmental and human health risk assessment for industries using hazardous materials: A quantitative multi criteria approach for environmental decision makers, Environment International. Vol. 37, pp: 393-403.