Thu, Nov 21, 2024
[Archive]
.png)
Volume 8, Issue 4 (12-2022)
jhehp 2022, 8(4): 191-201 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Amiri M, Zaeimdar M, Khaledi H, Rezaian S. Risk Assessment of Urban Waste Management through EFMEA and TOPSIS Methods (Case Study: District 6 of Tehran Municipality, Iran). jhehp 2022; 8 (4) :191-201
URL: http://jhehp.zums.ac.ir/article-1-543-en.html
URL: http://jhehp.zums.ac.ir/article-1-543-en.html
1- Department of Environment, North Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Agriculture, Yadegar Imam Khomeini branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
3- Department of Environment, Shahrood Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrood, Iran.
2- Department of Agriculture, Yadegar Imam Khomeini branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
3- Department of Environment, Shahrood Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrood, Iran.
Abstract: (3354 Views)
Background: We assessed and ranked environmental risks in the mechanized urban waste collection and storage systems in Tehran municipality (Iran) to locate safe areas for the establishment of these systems.
Methods: This descriptive-analytical study first identified and classified the effective factors in locating the mechanized systems of the studied district in seven criteria (socioeconomic, physical-spatial, hydrological-climatic, geological, and three passive defenses including dispersion, lifeline, and high-risk facilities). Risk factors were evaluated using the FMEA technique and prioritized using the TOPSIS method.
Results: The FMEA results classified the identified passive defense and environmental risks into three levels (high, medium, low), with 69% of the risks at the low level, 17% at the medium level, and 14% at the high level. The TOPSIS ranking results identified "Distance to nearest fire station", "Distance to a fault" and "Distance to power substation" as the highest risk factors with the similarity to ideal solution (cli)values of 0.861, 0.774 and 0.771, respectively, as well as "Distance to gas pressure-reducing stations" (cli = 0.134) as the least important risk factor.
Conclusion: New urban waste collection and storage stations in the studied district should be established according to the population of the areas and at a suitable distance to the nearest fire stations. Further, locating and designing these systems in wide open spaces is highly essential.
Methods: This descriptive-analytical study first identified and classified the effective factors in locating the mechanized systems of the studied district in seven criteria (socioeconomic, physical-spatial, hydrological-climatic, geological, and three passive defenses including dispersion, lifeline, and high-risk facilities). Risk factors were evaluated using the FMEA technique and prioritized using the TOPSIS method.
Results: The FMEA results classified the identified passive defense and environmental risks into three levels (high, medium, low), with 69% of the risks at the low level, 17% at the medium level, and 14% at the high level. The TOPSIS ranking results identified "Distance to nearest fire station", "Distance to a fault" and "Distance to power substation" as the highest risk factors with the similarity to ideal solution (cli)values of 0.861, 0.774 and 0.771, respectively, as well as "Distance to gas pressure-reducing stations" (cli = 0.134) as the least important risk factor.
Conclusion: New urban waste collection and storage stations in the studied district should be established according to the population of the areas and at a suitable distance to the nearest fire stations. Further, locating and designing these systems in wide open spaces is highly essential.
Keywords: Risk Assessment, Waste Management, Mechanized Collection System, TOPSIS method, FMEA technique
Type of Study: Original Article |
Subject:
Environmental Health, Sciences, and Engineering
Received: 2022/09/26 | Accepted: 2022/11/13 | Published: 2022/12/11
Received: 2022/09/26 | Accepted: 2022/11/13 | Published: 2022/12/11
References
1. Ojaghi A, Fataei E, Gharibi Asl S, Imani AA. Construction, Design and Testing of Infectious Waste Decontamination Device by Mechanical and Chemical Methods, A Case Study: Imam Khomeini Hospital, Sarab, Iran. Journal of Health Sciences and Surveillance System. 2021; 9(3): 72-80. [Google Scholar]
2. Fataei E, Seiied Safavian ST. Comparative Study on Efficiency of ANP and PROMETHEE Methods in Locating MSW Landfill Sites. Anthropogenic Pollution. 2017; 1(1): 40-5. [Google Scholar]
3. Marvin S, Medd W. Clogged Cities: Sclerotic Infrastructures. Graham, Routledge, New York. Disruptive Cities: when Infrastructure Fails. 2010: 85-96. [Google Scholar]
4. Hemmati S, Fataei E, Imani AA. Effects of Source Separation Education on Solid Waste Reduction in Developing Countries (A Case Study: Ardabil, Iran). The Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management. 2019; 45(3): 267-72. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
5. Amirfazli M, Safarzadeh S, Samadi Khadem R. Identification, Classification and Management of Industrial Hazardous Waste in Ardabil Province. Anthropogenic Pollution. 2019; 3(2): 29-36. [Google Scholar]
6. Rahnama MR, Shoorabi RA, Hadad M. The Role of Municipality in Crisis Management. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business. 2012; 4(8): 592-610. [Google Scholar]
7. Ziyari K. Urban Defense and Shelter Planning. Soffeh Journal. 2001; 32(11): 76-89.
8. Cheraghi M, Karbassi A, Monavari S, Baghvand A. Environmental Risk Management Associated with the Development one of Oil Fields in Southwestern Iran Using AHP and FMEA Methods. Anthropogenic Pollution. 2018; 2(2): 41-54. Available from: URL: Doi: 10.22034/ap.2018.573557.1025. [Google Scholar]
9. Zolghadr M, Gholami MJ. Assessing the Risk of Hostile Attacks with an Emphasis on the Network Analysis Process Model. Passive Defense. 2018; 9(1): 33-9.
10. Jabraeil Nejad P, Fataei E. Assessing the Environmental Risk in Using Wastewater of Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant in Agricultural Irrigation. Biological Forum. 2015: 112-21. [Google Scholar]
11. Hassanpour Kourandeh H, Fataei E. Risk Assessment of Pollution Accidents in Dam Reservoirs, Using WRASTIC Model (Case Study: Shafarood Dam, Guilan, Iran). Journal of Environmental Geology. 2013; 7(25): 19-36. (In Persian). [Article]
12. Fataei E. The Assessment of Environmental and Health Risks in Sabalan Dam Basin Using WRASTIC Model. Journal of Health. 2020; 11(4): 555-73. (In Persian). [Article] [Crossref]
13. Heller S. Managing Industrial Risk‐having a Tasted and Proven System to Prevent and Assess Risk. Hazardous Material. 2006; 130(17): 58‐63. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
14. Jozi SA, Saffarian Sh. Application of Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods in Studies of Environmental Hazards in Shadegan Wetland. Marine Science and Technology Research. 2011. 6(1): 1-16. [Google Scholar]
15. Ravan Nakhjavni H, Fataei E. The Evaluation of the Risk of Quality of Underground Wells of Ardabil Plain to Heavy Metals. Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences. 2015; 7(1): 326-37. [Google Scholar]
16. Niavrani MR. Application of FMEA Technique in Identification and Evaluation of Environmental Aspects and Introduction of EFMEA. Ravesh. 2004; 14(88): 20-2. [Article]
17. Sekhavati E, Jalilzadeh R. Optimizing the Risk of Building Environments Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making. Anthropogenic Pollution. 2022; 6(1): 1-7. Available from: URL: Doi: 10.22034/ap.2022.1942672.1121. [Google Scholar]
18. Nikandish A, Dashti S, Sabzghabaei Gh. The Assessment of Environmental Risks for Sustainable Development in National Parks and Protected Areas (Case Study: Dez National Park and Protected Area). Journal of Geography and Environmental Hazards. 2019; 8(29): 43-63. [Google Scholar]
19. Jozi SA, Hosseini SM, Khayatzadeh A, Tabib Shushtri M. Analyzing the Physical Risks of Balaroud Dam in Khuzestan in the Construction Phase Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making Method. Journal of Environmental Studies. 2010; 36(56): 25-38. [Article]
20. Vinodh S, Prasanna M, Hari Prakash N. Integrated Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS for Selecting the Best Plastic Recycling Method: A Case Study. Applied Mathematical Modelling. 2014; 38(19-20): 4662-72. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
21. Farrokhian F, Jahanbin Sh, Alavi Bakhtiarvand SA. Evaluation and Management of the Most Obvious Health, Safety and Environment Risks in the Mill Hall in Farabi Agriculture and Industry Using the Integrated TOPSIS & FMEA Model. The First International Conference on First International. Conference on Environmental Crisis and Its Solution, Kish Island, Iran. Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch of Ahvaz, Khuzestan, Iran. 2012.
22. Makvandi R, Astani S, Anoushe Z. Environmental Risk Assessment of Wetlands Using TOPSIS and EFMEA (Case Study: Shirinsoo Wetland in Hamedan Province). Journal of Wetland Ecobiology. 2012; 3(12): 1-18. [Article]
23. Habibi H, Talebi S, Khonakdar M, Akbarpour S. Evaluation and Prioritization of Safety Risks in the Operation Process by TOPSIS and FMEA Models in Mazandaran Regional Electric Company. The 28th International Power System Conference. 2013.
24. Li P, Qian H, Wu J, Chen J. Sensitivity Analysis of TOPSIS Method in Water Quality Assessment: I. Sensitivity to the Parameter Weights. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2013; 185: 2453-61. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
25. Li P, Wu J, Qian H, Chen J. Sensitivity Analysis of TOPSIS Method in Water Quality Assessment II: Sensitivity to the Indicator Input Data. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2013; 185: 2463-74. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
26. Li P, Wu J, Qian H. Assessment of Groundwater Quality for Irrigation Purposes and Identification of Hydrogeochemical Evolution Mechanisms in Pengyang County, China. Environmental Earth Sciences. 2013; 69(7): 2211-25. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
27. Moghadas M, Asadzadeh A, Vafeidis A, Feketec A, Kotter Th. A Multi-Criteria Approach for Assessing Urban Flood Resilience in Tehran, Iran. 2019; 35: 101069. Available from: URL: doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101069. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
28. Zubiri H, Almasi Z, Nasrabadi M. Environmental Risk Assessment of Bandar Dir Using the FMEA Technique. The 2nd International Conference on Modern Ideas in Agriculture, Environment, and Tourism. 2016.
29. Wang YM, Chin KS, Poon GKK, Yang JB. Risk Evaluation in Failure Mode and E-ECTS Analysis Using Fuzzy Weighted Geometric Mean. Expert Systems with Applications. 2009; 36: 1195-207. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
30. Kazemi Sh, Tabrizi N. Evaluation of Urban Space Safety with Emphasis on Passive Defense Indicators (Case Study: Amol City). Urban Planning Studies. 2015; 3(9): 11-26. [Article]
31. Li PY, Wu JH, Qian H. Groundwater Quality Assessment Based on Rough Sets Attribute Reduction and TOPSIS Method in a Semi-Arid Area, China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2012; 184(8): 4841-54. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
32. Zarei Matin H, Fathi MR, Karimi Zarchi M, Azizollahi S. The Application of Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach to Personnel Selection for Padir Company: Iran. Journal of Management Research. 2011; 2(3): 1-13. Available from: URL: doi:10.5296/jmr. v3i2.663. [Article] [Crossref]
33. Zavadskas EK, Vilutiene T, Turskis Z, Tamosaitiene J. Contractor Selection for Construction Works by Applying SAW-G and TOPSIS Grey Techniques. Journal of Business Economics and Management. 2010; 11: 34-55. Available from: URL: doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2010.03. [Article] [Crossref]
34. Setareh H, Koohpayi A. Fire Risk Assessment. First Edition, Fanavaran Publishing House, Tehran. 2005 (In Persian).
35. Jalilzadeh Yengejeh R, Sadat Rahmani M. Risk Assessment of Suspended Particles Using EFMEA Technique and TOPSIS Method in District 9 of Tehran Municipality. Environmental Science and Technology. 2021; 23(2): 275-94. [Article]
36. Rezaian S, Jozi SA, Atai S. Environmental Risk Assessment of Shohadaye Khalij Fars Agro-Industrial Complex Using the TOPEFMEA Method. Human and Environment. 2018; 16(4-47): 57-75. [Google Scholar]
37. Rezvani M, Tabibian S, Veisi A. The Assessment of Safety and Health Risk Using Multi-Criteria Evaluation Technique and TOPSIS Method in Ilam Gas Refinery. Iranian Journal of Health and Environment. 2020; 12 (4): 639-50. Available from: URL: http://ijhe.tums.ac.ir/article-1-6307-fa.html. [Google Scholar]
38. Saati S, Hatami Marbini A, Makui A. Fuzzy TOPSIS Group Decision Making. Journal of Operations Research, Islamic Azad University of Lahijan. 2007; 4(13): 21-34.
39. Sekhavati E, Jalilzadeh R. Optimizing the Risk of Building Environments Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making. Anthropogenic Pollution. 2022; 6(1): 1-7. doi: 10.22034/ap.2022.1942672.1121. [Google Scholar]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
© 2024 The Author(s)
