Research on risk management and control strategy of uranium resource procurement in China

References

• Brutschin, E., A. Cherp, and J. Jewell. 2021. Failing the formative phase: The global diffusion of nuclear power is limited by national markets. Energy Research & Social Science 80:102221. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2021.102221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campo, S. 2012. Risk aversion and asymmetry in procurement auctions: Identification, estimation and application to construction procurements. Journal of Econometrics 168 (1):96–107. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2011.09.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CNEA. 2021. China nuclear energy Development Report 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Cossin, D., and Z. Huang. 2002. A framework for collateral risk control determination. Fame Research Paper 7 (3):53–55.
   Google Scholar
• Dagdeviren, M., and I. Yueksel. 2010. A fuzzy analytic network process (ANP) model for measurement of the sectoral competititon level (SCL). Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2):1005–14. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2009.05.074.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He, B., and Y. Yang. 2018. Mitigating supply risk: An approach with quantity flexibility procurement. Annals of Operations Research 271 (2):599–617. doi:10.1007/s10479-018-2840-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes, A., E. Morrison, and K. N. Ruwanpura. 2019. Public sector procurement and ethical trade: Governance and social responsibility in some hidden global supply chains. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 44 (2):242–55. doi:10.1111/tran.12274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jia, H., P. Li, W. Lv, J. Ren, C. Cheng, R. Zhang, Z. Zhou, and Y. Liang. 2022. Application of fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method to assess effect of conformance control treatments on water-injection wells. Petroleum. doi:10.1016/j.petlm.2022.04.006.
   Google Scholar
• Khalilzadeh, M., H. Shakeri, and S. Zohrehvandi. 2021. Risk identification and assessment with the fuzzy DEMATEL-ANP method in oil and gas projects under uncertainty. Procedia computer science 181:277–84. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.147.
   Google Scholar
• Lenderink, B., J. I. M. Halman, J. Boes, H. Voordijk, and A. G. Dorée. 2022. Procurement and innovation risk management: How a public client managed to realize a radical green innovation in a civil engineering project. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 28 (1):100747. doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2022.100747.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang, W., Y. Yang, K. Qi, K. Jin, and L. Xiong. 2021. Quality evaluation of multi-path laser cladding coatings based on integrated fuzzy comprehensive evaluation and improved analytical hierarchy process method. Surface & Coatings Technology 427:127816. doi:10.1016/j.surfcoat.2021.127816.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyu, H. -M., W. -H. Zhou, S. -L. Shen, and A. -N. Zhou. 2020. Inundation risk assessment of metro system using AHP and TFN-AHP in Shenzhen. Sustainable Cities and Society 56:102103. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2020.102103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massot, P., and Z. M. Chen. 2013. China and the global uranium market: Prospects for peaceful coexistence. Scientific World Journal 2013:672060. doi:10.1155/2013/672060.
   Google Scholar
• Nazim, M., C. Wali Mohammad, and M. Sadiq. 2022. A comparison between fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods to software requirements selection. Alexandria Engineering Journal 61 (12):10851–70. doi:10.1016/j.aej.2022.04.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozdemir, A., and F. Tuysuz. 2017. An integrated fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy ANP based balanced scorecard approach: Application in Turkish higher education institutions. Journal of Multiple-Valued Logic and Soft Computing 28 (2–3):251–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pramanik, D., S. C. Mondal, and A. Haldar. 2019. A framework for managing uncertainty in information system project selection: An intelligent fuzzy approach. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management 15 (12):1–9. doi:10.1080/17509653.2019.1604191.
   Google Scholar
• Ren, W., Q. Cao, L. Yang, and S. Huang. 2022. Uranium in Chinese coals: Concentration, spatial distribution, and modes of occurrence. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 246:106848. doi:10.1016/j.jenvrad.2022.106848.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rinaldi, M., T. Murino, E. Gebennini, D. Morea, and E. Bottani. 2022. A literature review on quantitative models for supply chain risk management: Can they be applied to pandemic disruptions? Computers & Industrial Engineering 170:108329. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2022.108329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seong, C., G. Heo, S. Baek, J. W. Yoon, and M. C. Kim. 2018. Analysis of the technical status of multiunit risk assessment in nuclear power plants. Nuclear Engineering and Technology 50 (3):319–26. doi:10.1016/j.net.2017.12.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh, V., V. Kumar, and V. B. Singh. 2022. A hybrid novel fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS technique for selecting parameter-influencing testing in software development. Decision Analytics Journal 6:100159. doi:10.1016/j.dajour.2022.100159.
   Google Scholar
• Sipahi, S., and M. Timor. 2010. The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: An overview of applications. Management Decision 48 (5):775–808. doi:10.1108/00251741011043920.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivakumar, S. 2022. A novel integrated risk management method for airport operations. Journal of Air Transport Management 105:102296. doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2022.102296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavana, M., M. Keramatpour, F. J. Santos-Arteaga, and E. Ghorbaniane. 2015. A fuzzy hybrid project portfolio selection method using data envelopment analysis, TOPSIS and integer programming. Expert Systems with Applications 42 (22):8432–44. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.06.057.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavana, M., G. Khosrojerdi, H. Mina, and A. Rahman. 2019. A hybrid mathematical programming model for optimal project portfolio selection using fuzzy inference system and analytic hierarchy process. Evaluation and Program Planning 77:101703. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101703.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UNtrade. 2019. UN comtrade database. https://comtrade.un.org/data/
   Google Scholar
• Unver, S., and I. Ergenc. 2021. Safety risk identification and prioritize of forest logging activities using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Alexandria Engineering Journal 60 (1):1591–99. doi:10.1016/j.aej.2020.11.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, Q., R. Li, and G. He. 2018. Research status of nuclear power: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 90:90–96. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.044.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wenlin, Q. 2014. Risk assessment of overseas uranium resources development investment based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method. Hunan: Nanhua University.
   Google Scholar
• WNA. 2019a. World nuclear power reactors & uranium requirements. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/world-nuclear-power-reactors-and-uranium-requireme.aspx
   Google Scholar
• WNA. 2019b. World uranium mining production. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/mining-of-uranium/world-uranium-mining-production.aspx
   Google Scholar
• WNA. 2022a. Supply of uranium. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx
   Google Scholar
• WNA. 2022b. Uranium markets. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/uranium-markets.aspx
   Google Scholar
• WNA. 2022c. Uranium mining overview. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/mining-of-uranium/uranium-mining-overview.aspx
   Google Scholar
• WNA. 2022d. Uranium Production Figures. 2012-2021. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/uranium-production-figures.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Xing, W., A. Wang, Q. Yan, and S. Chen. 2017. A study of China’s uranium resources security issues: Based on analysis of China’s nuclear power development trend. Annals of Nuclear Energy 110:1156–64. doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2017.08.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiuqin, W. 2009. Foreign exchange risk management of international engineering materials procurement. International Economic Cooperation 5:68–72.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, J. -E. 2018. Multi-unit risk assessment of nuclear power plants: Current status and issues. Nuclear Engineering and Technology 50 (8):1199–209. doi:10.1016/j.net.2018.09.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoon, J., S. Talluri, and C. Rosales. 2020. Procurement decisions and information sharing under multi-tier disruption risk in a supply chain. International Journal of Production Research 58 (5):1362–83. doi:10.1080/00207543.2019.1634296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhong, C., Q. Yang, J. Liang, and H. Ma. 2022. Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation with AHP and entropy methods and health risk assessment of groundwater in Yinchuan Basin, northwest China. Environmental Research 204:111956. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.111956.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, T., M. Modarres, and E. L. Droguett. 2021. Multi-unit nuclear power plant probabilistic risk assessment: A comprehensive survey. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 213:107782. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2021.107782.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar