| Title |
A Comparative Approach for Ranking Contaminated Sites Based on the Risk Assessment Paradigm Using Fuzzy PROMETHEE
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Management, September 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00267-009-9368-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kejiang Zhang, Cheryl Kluck, Gopal Achari |
| Abstract |
A ranking system for contaminated sites based on comparative risk methodology using fuzzy Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE) was developed in this article. It combines the concepts of fuzzy sets to represent uncertain site information with the PROMETHEE, a subgroup of Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods. Criteria are identified based on a combination of the attributes (toxicity, exposure, and receptors) associated with the potential human health and ecological risks posed by contaminated sites, chemical properties, site geology and hydrogeology and contaminant transport phenomena. Original site data are directly used avoiding the subjective assignment of scores to site attributes. When the input data are numeric and crisp the PROMETHEE method can be used. The Fuzzy PROMETHEE method is preferred when substantial uncertainties and subjectivities exist in site information. The PROMETHEE and fuzzy PROMETHEE methods are both used in this research to compare the sites. The case study shows that this methodology provides reasonable results. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 2 | 2% |
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| Serbia | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 79 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 18% |
| Researcher | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 19% |
| Unknown | 14 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 20 | 24% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 10 | 12% |
| Environmental Science | 9 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 16% |
| Unknown | 23 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 December 2010.
All research outputs
#8,535,472
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#737
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,013
of 99,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#6
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 99,182 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.