chakhar, pusceddu & saad - input2012
DESCRIPTION
Salem Chakhar, Clara Pusceddu and Ines Saad on "Evaluating Post-Accident nuclear risk by coupling GIS and rough set theory"TRANSCRIPT
Inp
ut2
01
2 -
EVALUATING POST-ACCIDENT
NUCLEAR RISK BY COUPLING GIS
AND ROUGH SET THEORYSalem Chakhar University of Laval, Canada
Clara Pusceddu University of Sassary – Faculty of Architecture
of Alghero, Italy
Ines Saad, University of Picardie, France
1
-C
aglia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
INTRODUCTION
� The management of the consequences of a major nuclear
accident necessarily involves the consideration of multiple
criteria in order to ensure sustainable development in
areas that might be affected.
Inp
ut2
01
2 -
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
� Furthermore, the management of the consequences of a
major nuclear accident requires a multidisciplinary
approach to produce a sustainable response to the
environmental, economic and social problems linked to the
various local intricacies.
2
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
OBJECTIVE
� Propose a Multicriteria Evaluation approach for
characterizing the different districts of the affected area in
terms of their vulnerability levels while taking into account
multiple stakeholders with contradictory objectives and
priorities.
Inp
ut2
01
2 -
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
priorities.
� The proposed approach is composed of 4 phases:
1. identifying the stakes involved,
2. identification of representative criteria,
3. quantifying criteria scores, and
4. group multicriteria classification. 3
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
FOCUSING ON 4 PHASE…. (CHAKHAR…)
� It requires the use of an adequate technique to combine the
perspectives of different stakeholders.
� We adopted the output-oriented strategy (Dias and
Inp
ut2
01
2 -
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
� We adopted the output-oriented strategy (Dias and
Climaco, 2000) to combine these perspectives. This strategy
works as follows:
1. first, each stakeholder performs her/his individual
classification; then
2. an appropriate aggregation operator is used to
combine the individual classifications into a collective
one. 4
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
A DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM DESIGN….
� A decision support system supporting the proposed
approach has been developed by coupling GIS technology
and Rough set theory (Pawlak 1991).
Inp
ut2
01
2 -
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
� The approach is validated using real-world data relative to
a nuclear risk management decision problem in the
southern France.
5
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
IN THIS PRESENTATION ….
1. Introduction of the proposed impact evaluation approach
2. Presentation of the case study with some conclusion
Inp
ut2
01
2 -
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
2. Presentation of the case study with some conclusion
6
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
1. MULTICRITERIA IMPACT EVALUATION
APPROACHIn
pu
t20
12
-C
aglia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
Phase 1. Identifying the stakes involved
Phase 1. Identifying the stakes involved
Phase 2: Identifyingrepresentative criteriaPhase 2: Identifying
representative criteria
7
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
representative criteriarepresentative criteria
Phase 3: Quantifyingcriteria scores
Phase 3: Quantifyingcriteria scores
Phase 4: Group multicriteria classification
Phase 4: Group multicriteria classification
1. MULTICRITERIA IMPACT EVALUATION
APPROACHIn
pu
t20
12
-C
aglia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
8
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
� Identification of the stakes involved including everything that can be affected by an accident such as zones that are densely inhabited, business activities, and cultural and environmental assets.
� Then one or more adverse effects have to be linked to each stakeso that they represent the consequences of an accident in various sectors.
1. MULTICRITERIA IMPACT EVALUATION
APPROACHIn
pu
t20
12
-C
aglia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
9
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2� Once the various factors and adverse effects have been selected, the criteria that characterize them have to be identified.
� Formally, a criterion is a function qj, defined on a set of decision objects U (which are districts in our case), taking its values in an ordered set, and structuring the stakeholder's preferences according to some points of view.
� The evaluation of an object u in respect to criterion qj is denoted qj(u).
� We denote by Q={q1, …,qm} the set of m evaluation criteria.
1. MULTICRITERIA IMPACT EVALUATION
APPROACHIn
pu
t20
12
-C
aglia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
10
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
� This involves evaluating the consequences on each district in respect to each criterion.
� The output of this phase is an evaluation matrix where rows represent the districts and columns represent the evaluation criteria.
� Each box then contains the corresponding value of the criterion for the district in question. In terms of this phase, each district u will be associated with the vector (q1(u),…,qm(u)) which represents the evaluations of u with respect to the criteria in Q.
1. MULTICRITERIA IMPACT EVALUATION
APPROACHIn
pu
t20
12
-C
aglia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
11
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
� The aim of group multicriteria classification phase is to assign the different districts of the study area to different risk classes while taking into account the perspectives of multiple stakeholders.
� A multicriteria classification model, called Dominance-based Rough Set Approach (DRSA) (Greco et al., 2002) an extension to rough sets theory (Pawlak 1991) to multicriteria classification, will individually be used by the different stakeholders.
� Some appropriate aggregation rules are then used to coherently combine the outputs of different stakeholders.
� The DRSA is then used once again to obtain the final classification in terms of vulnerability/risk levels of the districts.
4. CASE STUDY: NUCLEAR RISK MANAGEMENT
DECISION PROBLEM
� The problem considered here concerns the management of post-
accident nuclear risk in the southern France region.
� This problem has been conducted during the PRIME project,
which is supervised by the French Institute for Radioprotection
Inp
ut2
01
2 -
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
which is supervised by the French Institute for Radioprotection
and Nuclear Safety.
� A full description of the project is available in Mercat-Rommens et
al. (2010).
� The study zone covers a radius of some fifty kilometers around
three nuclear sites in the lower Rhône Valley (the Cruas,
Tricastin-Pierrelatte and Marcoule sites). 12
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
4. CASE STUDY: NUCLEAR RISK MANAGEMENT
DECISION PROBLEM
� The objective of the PRIME is to develop, conjointly with the
experts, the stakeholders and representatives of the territory, a
multicriteria evaluation approach permitting to analysis and
characterize the contaminated territory that will be useful for the
managers of the risk.
Inp
ut2
01
2 -
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
� Practically, the evaluation approach should associate to each
district of the study area a degree representing the risk on this
district of a nuclear accident resulting in releases into the
atmosphere.
� For this purpose, a scale of six from 0 (for a situation described as
normal) to 5 (in the event of a major and long-lasting negative
impact) has been adopted by PRIME working team. 13
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
4. CASE STUDY: NUCLEAR RISK MANAGEMENT
DECISION PROBLEMIn
pu
t20
12
-C
aglia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
The table describes the vulnerability measurement scale
14
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
4. CASE STUDY: APPLICATION. PHASE 1.
IDENTIFYNG THE STAKES INVOLVEDIn
pu
t20
12
-C
aglia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
The stakes are organized into 3 groups:
(i) radioecological consequences which are related to the
contamination of urban, agricultural, costal and natural and
forest areas; Rhône River and ground water;
15
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
forest areas; Rhône River and ground water;
(ii) economic consequences related to contamination and damage on
companies, tourism activity, real estate and employment;
(iii) population reactions.
4. CASE STUDY: APPLICATION. PHASE 2.
CHOOSING REPRESENTATIVE CRITERIAIn
pu
t20
12
-C
aglia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
� Based on the stakes identified in the previous phase, a
comprehensive list of criteria has been identified by the different
stakeholders (see Mercat-Rommens et al., 2010).
� For the purpose of the present paper, only a subset of criteria, will
be used for illustration.
16
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
be used for illustration.
4. CASE STUDY: APPLICATION. PHASE 3.
QUANTIFYING THE CRITERIA SCORESIn
pu
t20
12
-C
aglia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
� The quantification of criteria required the federation of available radio-ecological data (field data, modeling, experimental results), as well as territory data.
� The assessment method of the radiological sensitivity indicators invoked classic impact calculation models for radionuclides used at the IRSN: CASTEAUR code for river discharges (see Duchesne et
17
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
the IRSN: CASTEAUR code for river discharges (see Duchesne et al., 2003), ASTRAL code for forest ecosystem and food chain contamination following accidental radioactive pollution (see Renaud et al., 1999; Calmon and Mourlon, 2005), integrating the spatial variability of parameters.
4. CASE STUDY: APPLICATION. PHASE 3.
QUANTIFYING THE CRITERIA SCORESIn
pu
t20
12
-C
aglia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
An extract of the obtained evaluation matrix that represents a common
information table for all the involved stakeholders for the 4 phase.
18 districts (x1,…..x18)
have been carefully
selected (from 491
18
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
selected (from 491
districts) by PRIME
working team: these
districts are chosen to
be as representative as
possible by including
urban, industrial as
well as rural districts.
4. CASE STUDY: APPLICATION. PHASE
4. GROUP MULTICRITERIA CLASSIFICATIONIn
pu
t20
12
-C
aglia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
� Individual classification
� Given the evaluation of the 18 selected districts in respect to all criteria, each
stakeholder is called to classify each of them on the global vulnerability scale.
� The responses of the stakeholders are then used to define the values of the
decision attributes E1, E2 and E3 associated with the 3 stakeholders considered
in this paper.
19
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
in this paper.
� Then each stakeholder should apply the DRSA on each decision table to get its
own classification.
� Aggregation of the individual classification
� Final classification
4. CASE STUDY: APPLICATION. PHASE 3.
QUANTIFYING THE CRITERIA SCORESIn
pu
t20
12
-C
aglia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
20
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
4. CASE STUDY: APPLICATION, 4. GROUP
MULTICRITERIA CLASSIFICATIONIn
pu
t20
12
-C
aglia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
Aggregation
� In this step, we first apply the aggregation procedure to
construct a common decision table with common Condition
attributes (Criteria) and Decision Attributes.
21
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
Final classification
� Next, the Dominance-based Rough Set Approach (DRSA) is applied
to the common decision table to classify the districts of the
study area.
4. CASE STUDY: APPLICATION, 4. GROUP
MULTICRITERIA CLASSIFICATIONIn
pu
t20
12
-C
aglia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
� The result of classification is shown in Figure 1. The left-hand side of the interface shows the global vulnerability scale with shaded tones. The map on the right-hand side of the interface shows the final classification of the different districts.
22
Ca
glia
ri 11
Ma
y 2
01
2
classification of the different districts.
� It is easy to see that vulnerability decreases relatively concentrically around the Tricastin-Pierrelatte nuclear site, which is the location of the fictive accident considered in this case study.
The obtained risk map represents the main decision support that could be
used by risk managers to effectively and rapidly manage the contaminated
districts by appropriately identifying the required measures for affected
districts