Korean Chemical Engineering Research

The Korean Institute of Chemical Engineers (한국화학공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Feasibility Analysis of Korea TURA Reflecting Fuzzy Weights

Fuzzy 가중치를 반영한 배출 저감 규제의 타당성 분석

  • Yoon, Daniel Jongsoo (Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Byun, Hun-Soo (Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Chonnam National University)
  • 윤종수 (전남대학교 화공생명공학과) ;
  • 변헌수 (전남대학교 화공생명공학과)
  • Received : 2021.02.24
  • Accepted : 2021.03.06
  • Published : 2021.05.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The toxics regulatory body provides a benefit/cost ratio as a justification criterion while implementing regulations that induce the industry to reduce emissions voluntarily. Furthermore, since, the body wants to reflect not only the efficiency standard but also the policy standard in the evaluation of feasibility, it calculates the ratio by adjusting the importance weights. The problem is that respondents answer ambiguously. It should be removed for the reasonable evaluation. This study introduced a fuzzy-AHP methodology for this, and applied it to the voluntary emission reduction plan program in Korea.

규제당국은 유해 물질 배출을 저감 하는 규제를 시행하면서, 규제 이행에 따른 다양한 활동의 편익/비용 비율로 그 타당성을 제시한다. 그리고 비율 산정과정에서 규제 관련 속성의 중요도 가중치를 반영한다. 그런데, 전문가들은 가중치 설문 응답에서 애매함을 보이고 있으며, 정확한 의사 결정을 위해서는 이를 제거해야 한다. 본 연구에서는 이를 위한 퍼지-계층화 방법론을 이용하여 타당성여부를 적용하고, 이를 2019년 11월 시행된 우리나라의 '배출 저감 계획'규제 타당성 평가에 적용하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Shin, Y. C., "Establishment of Socioeconomic Analysis Base for Chemical Substance Management (I-II)," National Institute of Environmental Sciences (2017).
  2. TO21, "Research on Institutionalization of Chemical Emission Reduction," Ministry of Environment (2019).
  3. KDI, "AHP Decision-making Characteristics Analysis," KDI, Center for Regulatory Studies (2013).
  4. Yoon, J. S. and Byun, H. S., "A Revised Benefit-cost Analysis of the Korean TUR Program," Clean Technol., 26(3), 168-176 (2020). https://doi.org/10.7464/KSCT.2020.26.3.168
  5. Tzeng, G. H. and Huang, J. J., "Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications," p. 63 (2011).
  6. Satty, T. L., The analytic hierarchy process, McGraw Hill, New York (1980).
  7. Zahedi, F., "The Analytic Hierarchy Process - A Survey of the Method and its Application," Interfaces, 16(4), 96-108(1986). https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.16.4.96
  8. Laarhoven, P. J. M. and Pedrycz, W., "A Fuzzy Extention of Saaty's Priority Theory," Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11, 229-241 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(83)80083-9
  9. Csutora, R. and Buckley, J. J., "Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis: The Lambda-max Method," Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 120, 181-195 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(99)00155-4
  10. Chang, D., Jing, Y. and Zhu, K., "A Discussion on Extent Analysis Method and Application of Fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, 116, 450-456(1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00331-2
  11. Opricovic, S. and Tzeng, G. H., "Defuzzification Within a Multicriteria Decision Model," International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 11, 635-652(2003). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218488503002387
  12. Choi, K. H. and Han, D. W., "The Fuzzy AHP Approach to the Relative Importance of the Deciding Factors for Admission Screening," Journal of the Korean Data & Information Science Society, 21(4), 699-708(2010).
  13. Kim, S. M. and Kahng, H. K., "A Fuzzy AHP Approach to the Measurement of Weights of Customer Satisfaction Factors in Campus Intranet Service," Inernational Journal of Production Economics, 87, 153-178(2004).
  14. Ministry of Environment, Analysis of regulatory impact related to preparation/submission/disclosure of chemical reduction plan, Interim Report (2019).