Environmental Risk Assessment of Dams in Construction Phase Using a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Method

REFERENCES

• Abo-Sinna MA and Amer AH. 2005. Extensions of TOPSIS for multi-objective large-scale nonlinear programming problems. Appl Math Comput 162:243–56
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azadeh A and Mohammad Fam I. 2009. Integrated M HSEE management systems for industry: A case study in gas refinery. J Chin Inst Chem Eng 32:235–41
   Google Scholar
• Bertolini M and Braglia M. 2006. Application of the AHP methodology in making a proposal for a public work contract, Int J Proj Manag 24(5):422–30
   Google Scholar
• Bhushan N and Rai K. 2004. Strategic Decision Making: Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process (Decision Engineering), 1st edit, Springer, Germany
   Google Scholar
• Bowen WM. 1990. Subjective judgments and data environment analysis in site selection. Computer Environ Urb Syst 14: 133–44
   Google Scholar
• Cimren E, Catay B, and Budak E. 2007. Development of a machine tool selection system using AHP. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 35:363–76
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dagdeviren M, Yavuz S, and Kılınç N. 2009. Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 36:8143–51
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dam Safety Risk Analysis Methodology. 2003. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, May, Service Center Technical, Denver, CO, USA
   Google Scholar
• Dodangeh J, Yusuff R, and Jassbi J. 2010. Using TOPSIS method with goal programming for best selection of strategic plans in BSC model. J Am Sci 6:136–42
   Google Scholar
• Dongjian Z, Chongshi G, Peng L, et al. 2005. Safety Synthesis Assessment of River-Way Levee. 73rd Annual Meeting of ICOLD, Tehran, Iran, May 1–6, Paper No. 002-S1
   Google Scholar
• EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1974. . Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, DC, USA
   Google Scholar
• Gumus AT. 2009. Evaluation of hazardous waste transportation firms by using a two step fuzzy–AHP and TOPSIS methodology. Expert Syst Appl 36:4067–74
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrald JR, Renda-Tanali I, Shaw GL, et al. 2006. Review of Risk Based Prioritization/Decision Making. Methodologies for Dams. The George Washington University Institute for Crisis Disaster and Risk Management, 1776 GS4 NW, Suite 110, Washington DC
   Google Scholar
• Hwang CL and Yoon KS. 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision-Making: Methods and Applications, Springer, New York, NY, USA
   Google Scholar
• Iranian Ministry of Energy. 2007. . Available at http://www.moe.org.ir
   Google Scholar
• Jason KL. 2005. Multiple criteria decision making and decision support systems for flood risk management. Stoch Env Res Risk A, 19:438–47
   Google Scholar
• Lee E, Park Y, and Shin J. 2008. Large engineering projected risk management using a Bayesian belief network. Expert Syst Appl 36:5880–7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Momeni M. 2006. New Topics in Operations Research. Faculty of Management, 1st edit, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran
   Google Scholar
• Muhlbauer WK. 2004. Pipeline risk management. Manual, 3rd edit. Gulf Professional Publishing, Houston, TX, USA
   Google Scholar
• Ngai EWT. 2003. Selection of web sites for online advertising using the AHP. Inform Manage 40:233–242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen DL. 2004. Comparison of weights in TOPSIS models. Math Comput Model 40:721–7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen SI, Christensen FM, and Hauschild M. 2001. Life cycle impact assessment and risk assessment of chemicals—a methodological comparison. Environ Impact Asses 21:385–404
   Google Scholar
• Onut S and Soner S. 2008. Transshipment site selection using the AHP and TOPSIS approaches under fuzzy environment. Waste Manage 28:1552–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Opricovic S and Hshiung Tzeng G. 2004. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156:445–55
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramanathan R. 2001. A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. J Environ Manage 63:27–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarkis J and Talluri S. 2004. Evaluating and selecting e-commerce software and communication systems for a supply chain. Eur J Oper Res 159:318–29
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaty TL. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA
   Google Scholar
• Saaty TL. 1990. Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
   Google Scholar
• Schinas O. 2007. Examining the Use and Application of Multi-Criteria Decision on Making Techniques in Safety Assessment. In: International Symposium on Maritime Safety, Security and Environmental Protection. Athens, Greece
   Google Scholar
• Sen P and Yang JB. 1998. Multiple Criteria Decision Support in Engineering Design. Springer-Verlag, London, Great Britain
   Google Scholar
• Shih HS, Shyur HJ, and Stanley Lee E. 2007. An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Math Comput Model :801–13
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srdjevic B, Medeiros Y, and Faria A. 2004. An objective multi-criteria evaluation of water management scenarios. Water Resour Manage 18:35–54
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang T and Hunng CC. 2007. Multiple-attribute decision making methods for plant layout design problem. Robot Cim-Int Manuf 23:126–37
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ying Wang Y, Liu J, and Elhag TMS. 2007. An integrated AHP-DEA methodology for bridge risk assessment. Comput Ind Eng 54(3):513–25
   Google Scholar