Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Multicriteria Procedures for Environmental Assessment of Transport Routes Crossing the
Pyrenees in Navarre (Spain)
Angel A. Juan
Dep. of Computer Sciences, Multimedia and Telecommunication
Open University of Catalonia
Barcelona, SPAIN
Javier Faulin
Esteban de Paz
Dep. of Statistics and Operations Research
Public University of Navarre
Pamplona, SPAIN
Fernando Lera [email protected]
Department of Economics
Public University of Navarre
Pamplona, SPAIN
2
0. Index
1. Introduction
2. Problem definition
3. Some transportation activities to follow up
4. Environmental Issues of Transportation
5. Methodological Analysis
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making
7. AHP Results and Sensitivity Analysis
8. Conclusions
3
1. Introduction-I: Problem Approximation
Goods Transportation by Road is one of the main concerns of the European Union due to the pollution implications
Routing Problems Crossing Areas with Environmental Criteria (Sinha and Labi, 2007):
• Traditional optimization problems have considered classical criteria to optimize: distance, fuel consumption, costs,…
• Including also environmental criteria in those transportation problems adds an important value to the classical ones.
• Good characteristics to establish green corridors: environmentally-friendly roads with low pollution levels.
Traditionally, environmental criteria are very well considered using Multicriteria Analysis (Weintraub et al., 2007; Saaty, 2001)
4
1. Introduction-II: Geographical Focus
Goods Transportation crossing the Pyrenees (geographical border between Spain and France) is one of the critical problems to link the Iberian peninsula with Central Europe. The analysis of this problem is essential according to the environmental policies of European Union.
• Current situation of goods transportation using the two traditional motorways between Spain and France.
• A complete analysis of the two traditional motorways is well-known, but analysis of other routes is needed.
5
1. Introduction-III: A Route Selection Example
Considering the two ways of connecting points A and B, we have to evaluate their respective routes to decide which one is better according to the pre-defined environmental criteria.
6
2. Problem definition-I
Alternative selection: It is known that the main roads crossing the Pyrenees in Navarre are the next ones:
i. Alt 1- Pamplona- Leiza (AP-15 and A-15)
ii. Alt 2- Pamplona- Vera Bidasoa (N-121A)
iii. Alt 3- Pamplona- Dancharinea (N-121B)
iv. Alt 4- Pamplona- Valcarlos (N-135)
v. Alt 5- Pamplona-Yesa (A-21 and N-240)
Which of them is the best route according to sustainability?
• Criteria selection. Options:
a. Only environmental criteria
b. Environmental criteria plus traditional transport criteria
c. Which environmental criteria?
7
3. Some transportation activities to follow upKey logistic activities in big retail companies.
i. Activities related to the delivery of final products from big warehouses and depots to local retail shops, supermarkets and hypermarkets.
ii. Suitable tuning of the supply chain management.
iii. Assignment decisions involving logistic resources, such as vehicle drivers, loading and unloading policies, selection of vehicle sizes and characteristics, delivery actions in big cities, etc.
iv. Tracking and monitoring activities related to products delivery.
v. Design of adequate Decision Support Systems in logistic activities
Retail companies usually make a big logistic effort in delivery activities from their depots to their retail shops
84. Environmental issues of Transportation- I
Dimensions of the Environmental Problem
a. Climate Change
b. Effects on the Air Quality
c. Noise Pollution
d. Water Quality
e. Land use and Effects on Soil Quality
f. Others: radioactive, light, visual and thermal pollution
Importance of transportation and logistic activities in the production of PM10 particles
Externalities caused by Logistic Activities
a. All the dimensions previously mentioned
b. Traffic congestion and traffic jams
c. Infrastructures wear
9
4. Environmental issues of Transportation- III
Air Pollutants
a. Local impact:
i.Carbon Monoxide (CO) (70-90%)
ii.Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) (45-50%)
iii.VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) (40-50%)
iv.Pollutant Particles (25%)
v.Lead (30-40%)
Carbon Monoxide (CO), Carbon Dioxide (CO2),Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) andSulphur Dioxide (SO2) are the most important pollutants
b.Global impact:
i.Carbon Dioxide (CO2) (25%)
ii.Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) (5%)
iii.Ozone (O3)
iv.Acid Rain (10-30%)
v.Clorofluorocarbonates (CFC) (30%)
Percentages represent the rate of the pollutant produced by logistic activities.
Percentages represent the rate of the pollutant produced by logistic activities.
10
4. Environmental issues of Transportation- IV
Noise Pollutants
a. Noises due to road transportation:
i. The vehicle engine and the asphalt rubbing are the main noise producers
ii. It is the most important noise producer related to logistic activities.
b. Noises due to train transportation
i. Train engines and the friction between wheels and tracks
ii. Aerodynamic noise for speeds greater than 200 km/h (124 miles/h)
c. Noises due to air transportation
i. It assumes the 20% of the transportation costs
Road accounts for approximately 70% of total noise emissions by transportation
11
5. Methodological Analysis
Methodology to tackle this transportation problem:1. The problem presents a discrete number of alternatives. 2. Knowing that it is possible to build very well-defined
alternatives characterized by multiple attributes.
3. Multiattribute Programming focused on AHP is the most plausible procedure to analyse this problem.
Alternatives
Attributes
Multiattribute Programming AHP
12
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- I
Problem Definition
Criteria Alternatives
Decision Matrix
Scoring
User Preferences
Decision Rules
Sensitivity Analysis
Final Decision
Multicriteria decision analysis: Steps
1. Problem definition 2. Alternatives
3. Criteria
4. Scoring
5. Decision Matrix
6. User Preferences
7. Decision Rules
8. Sensitivity Analysis
9. Final Decision
13
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- II
I. Problem definition
Selection of the transportation route crossing the Pyrenees which have a minimum environmental impact over nature.
II. Alternatives
i. Alt 1- Pamplona- Leiza (AP-15 and A-15)
ii. Alt 2- Pamplona- Vera Bidasoa (N-121A)
iii. Alt 3- Pamplona- Dancharinea (N-121B)
iv. Alt 4- Pamplona- Valcarlos (N-135)
v. Alt 5- Pamplona-Yesa (A-21 and N-240)
14
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- III
Geographical Description of the five Alternatives
15
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- IV
I. The values of the impacts on the criteria
Incidence: severity of the impact
Magnitude: quantity and quality of the affected factor
II. Actions on the infrastructure cause impacts on the environment
Actions Impacts
• Emissions increase.
• Higher noise levels.
• More intensive traffic.
• Greater vibration.
• Uncontrolled releases of pollutants and accidents.
• Increased atmospheric levels because of the traffic• Reduction of acoustic comfort because of the traffic• Effects on accidents.• Higher risk of forest fires.• Alteration of landscape areas of high value.• Alteration of landscape areas of minor value.• Impact on protected natural areas
16
Impact of a Road Corridor on Nearby Environmental Factors
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- V
17
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- VI
Characteristics of the Survey Developed to Calculate Criteria Weights-1
I. A survey was carried out in the surrounding areas of the five candidate roads to estimate importance of the criteria weights for AHP (Lera et al., 2011):
Geographical area: Roads crossing the Pyrenees in Navarre
Survey size: 600 with a stratified methodology
Definition of two influence zones according to their infrastructures distance: Zone A and Zone B
18
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- VII
Characteristics of the Survey Developed to Calculate Criteria Weights-2
19
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- VIII
Selected Criteria for the AHP Model
I. According to the results given by the previous survey, the selected criteria are organised in the following way:
Factors: they gather subfactors in three great groups: Social, Economic and Natural Areas
Subfactors: they present precise details of the impacts of different actions
20
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- IX
Alternative
1Alternative
2Alternative
3Alternative
4Alternative
5
Heritage of Cultural Interest %
0.00 0.01 0.25 6.81 1.02
Results of the alternatives scoring for environmental assessment.Factor: Social – Subfactor: Heritage of Cultural Interest
21
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- X
Alternative
1Alternative
2Alternative
3Alternative
4Alternative
5
Recreative Zones % 4.38 8.33 7.21 7.10 2.96
Results of the alternatives scoring for environmental assessment.Factor: Social – Subfactor: Recreative Zones
22
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- XIResults of the alternatives scoring for environmental assessment.
Factor: Social – General Results for this Factor
23
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- XIIResults of the alternatives scoring for environmental assessment.
Factor: Economic – General Results for this Factor
24
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- XIII
SCIs%
SACs%
Protected Landscapes%
Nature reserves%
Natural Parks%
Alternative 1 0 0 0 0 0Alternative 2 25.64 0.04 5.86 0 0.04
Alternative 3 24.59 0 5.69 0 0
Alternative 4 0.11 0 0 0 0
Alternative 5 2.58 0 0 0.22 0
Results of the alternatives scoring for environmental assessment.Factor: Natural Areas – Previous Calculations
25
6. Multicriteria evaluation and decision making- XIVResults of the alternatives scoring for environmental assessment.
Factor: Natural Areas – General Results for this Factor
26
7. AHP Results and Sensitivity Analysis- I
DECISIONAL MATRIX Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5
Social 0.29 0.24 0.11 0.11 0.24
Economic 0.31 0.04 0.04 0.31 0.30
Natural Areas 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.10 0.40
Weight Criteria
Social 0.40Economic 0.20
Natural Areas 0.40
AHP RESULTSAlternative 1 0.281Alternative 2 0.132Alternative 3 0.099Alternative 4 0.191Alternative 5 0.297
Decisional Matrix and Results
27
7. AHP Results and Sensitivity Analysis- II
Sensitivity Analysis Description
I. Validity of the solutions given by the previous AHP model
Proposed solutions: Alt 1 (0.281) and Alt 5 (0.297)
How sensible are those solutions to the weights?
II. Sensitivity Analysis provides the robustess of the solutions:
Factor Weights: Social (0.4), Economic (0.2) and Natural Areas (0.4)
Simulation experiment:• Size: 5,000
• Social and Natural Areas factors are uniformely simulated in the range [0.3,0.5]
• Economic factor is uniformely simulated in the range [0.1,0.3]
28
7. AHP Results and Sensitivity Analysis- III
Sensitivity Analysis Results
29
8. Conclusions- I
1. A robust solution has been obtained to make recommendations in the
use of infrastructures on behalf of distribution companies and delivery
to retailers.
2. The results are consistent between them and are in favor of the use of
motorways and recommend avoiding the use of national road dual
carriageways.
3. For the criteria weighing and environmental factor construction, users
subjective judgments by means of a survey were taken into account.
Other procedures (expert choice with a Delphi method) were also
considered to balance the previous assumptions.
30
8. Conclusions- II
4. The main results of this AHP model are being studied by the local
Government of Navarre to use it as a way of infrastructures
classification to be recommended to distribution companies and
logistic carriers.
5. The previous results assume the assessment of infrastructures with a
high degree of environment involvement.
6. Possibility of making replicas of the study with different alternatives.
Multicriteria Procedures for Environmental Assessment of Transport Routes Crossing the
Pyrenees in Navarre (Spain)
Angel A. Juan
Dep. of Computer Sciences, Multimedia and Telecommunication
Open University of Catalonia
Barcelona, SPAIN
Javier Faulin
Esteban de Paz
Dep. of Statistics and Operations Research
Public University of Navarre
Pamplona, SPAIN
Fernando Lera [email protected]
Department of Economics
Public University of Navarre
Pamplona, SPAIN
Thank you!Thank you!
