Measuring the effectiveness of AHP and fuzzy AHP models in environmental risk assessment of a gas power plant

References

• Abdelgawad M, Fayek A. 2010. Risk management in the construction industry using combined fuzzy FMEA and fuzzy AHP. J Constr Eng Manage. 136(9):1028–1036.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertolini M, Braglia M. 2006. Application of the AHP methodology in making a proposal for a public work. International Journal of Project Management 24(5):422–430.
   Google Scholar
• Bowen WM. 1990. Subjective judgments and data environment analysis in site selection. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 14(2):133–144. doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90018-O
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celik M, Er ID, Ozok AF. 2009. Application of fuzzy extended AHP methodology on shipping registry selection: the case of Turkish maritime industry. Expert Syst Appl. 36(1):190–198. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang DY. 1996. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res. 95(3):649–655. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dağdeviren M, Yavuz S, Kılınç N. 2009. Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl. 36(4):8143–8151. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.10.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Day K, Patel Z, Rother H-A. 2019. Applying social risk theory to competing constructions of risk in environmental assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 79:106312. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106312
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duran O, Aguilo J. 2008. Computer-aided machine-tool selection based on a Fuzzy-AHP approach. Expert Syst Appl. 34(3):1787–1794. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.01.046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gnoni M, Duraccio V, OIavagnilio R. 2016. A fuzzy AHP-based approach for assessing the faulty behaviour risk at workplace. Int. J. Business and Systems Research. 10(2/3/4):291–305. doi:10.1504/IJBSR.2016.0757
   Google Scholar
• Golkhani F, Ghotbi Ravandi MR, Baesmat S, Abasi Balochkhane F. 2018. The use of failure mode effects analysis (FMEA) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methods to determine the most important safety hazards. Health Edu Health Promot. 6(1):17–21. doi:10.29252/HEHP.6.1.17
   Google Scholar
• Golshani, A, Ahmad zadeh, F. 2013. Risk prioritization based on health. Safety and environmental factors by using Fuzzy FMEA. International Journal of Mining, Metallurgy & Mechanical Engineering 1(4):40–45.
   Google Scholar
• Hu A, Hsu C, Kuo T, Wu W. 2009. Risk evaluation of green components to hazardous substance using FMEA and FAHP. Expert Syst Appl. 36(3):7142–7147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jozi SA, Pouriyeh A. 2011. Health-safety and environmental risk assessment of power plants using multi criteria decision making method. APCBEE Procedia. 17(4):437–449.
   Google Scholar
• Jozi SA, Saffarian S, Shafiee M. 2012. environmental risk assessment of gas power plant exploitation unit using TOP-EFMEA method. Pol J Environ Stud. 21(1):95–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khashei-Siuki A, Keshavarz A, Sharifan H. 2020. Comparison of AHP and FAHP methods in determining suitable areas for drinking water harvesting in Birjand aquifer. Iran. Groundw Sustain Dev. 10:100328.
   Google Scholar
• Kutlu AC, Ekmekçioğlu M. 2012. Fuzzy failure modes and effects analysis by using fuzzy TOPSIS-based fuzzy AHP. Expert Syst Appl. 39(1):61–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maheswaran K, Loganathan T. 2013. A novel approach for prioritization of failure modes in FMEA using MCDM. Int J Eng Res Appl. 3:733–739.
   Google Scholar
• Mau J, Steiguer D, Dennis D. 2005. AHP as a means for improving public participation: a pre-post experiment with university students. Forest Policy Econ. 7(4):501–514.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meshram SG, Alvandi S, Singh VP, Meshram C. 2019. Comparison of AHP and fuzzy AHP models for prioritization of watersheds. Soft Comput. 23(24):13615.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naderzadeh M, Arabalibeik H, Monazzam M, Ghasemi I. 2017. Comparative analysis of AHP-TOPSIS and fuzzy AHP models in selecting appropriate nanocomposites for environmental noise barrier applications. Fluct Noise Lett. 16(04):1750038.
   Google Scholar
• Nazam, M, Xu, J, Tao, Z, Ahmad, J, Hashim, M. 2015. Risk Evaluation of Warehouse Operations by Using FMEA and Combined  AHP-TOPSIS Approaches Under Fuzzy Environment. International Journal of Development Research. 5(5):4328–4339.
   Google Scholar
• Oturakci M. 2018. A new fuzzy-based approach for environmental risk assessment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 25(7):1718–1728.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Özdağoğlu A, Özdağoğlu G. 2007. Comparison of AHP and fuzzy AHP for the multi-criteria decision making processes with linguistic evaluations. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Fen BilimleriDergisi. 1:65–85.
   Google Scholar
• Radionovs A, Rebrov O. 2014. Application of fuzzy logic for risk assessment. Inf Technol Manage Sci. 17(1):50–54. doi:10.1515/itms-2014-0007
   Google Scholar
• Rashad SM, Hammad FH. 2000. Nuclear power and the environment: comparative assessment of environment and health impact of electricity generating systems. Appl Energy. 65(1–4):211–229. doi:10.1016/S0306-2619(99)00069-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rezaian S, Jozi A. 2012. Health-safety and environmental risk assessment of refineries using of multi criteria decision making method. APCBEE Procedia. 3:235–238.
   Google Scholar
• Shin D, Shin Y, Kim G. 2016. Comparison of risk assessment for a nuclear power plant construction project based on analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. J Build Constr Plann Res. 04(03):157–171. doi:10.4236/jbcpr.2016.43010
   Google Scholar
• Vimal C, Singh V. 2019. Exploring the potential and opportunities of current tools for removal of hazardous materials from environments. Phytomanagement of Polluted Sites. Elsevier, Cambridge, MA. p. 501-516. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-813912-7.00020-X.
   Google Scholar
• Wang L, Chu J, Wu J. 2007. Selection of optimum maintenance strategies based on a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Int J Prod Econ. 107(1):151–163. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.08.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar