IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/recore/v122y2017icp353-361.html

Segmented pinch analysis for environmental risk management

Author

Listed:
  • Wang, Fang
  • Gao, Yue
  • Dong, Wenxu
  • Li, Zhiwei
  • Jia, Xiaoping
  • Tan, Raymond R.

Abstract

Implementing environmental risk mitigation countermeasures in the context of a business environment requires balancing costs and benefits of projects to be implemented. Systematic environmental risk analysis methods are thus needed to aid decision-making. This paper proposes a segmented pinch analysis methodology that considers the relationship between environmental risk prevention and control countermeasure costs, while also considering the criticality of environmental risk prevention. In this methodology, the countermeasure costs are divided into low-, medium-, and high-cost intervals. This methodology is illustrated using a chemical industry case study to demonstrate how risk countermeasures can be identified under different levels of a firm’s “willingness to pay.” The final optimal mix of countermeasures can then be determined from candidate solutions. And it makes a firm to best allocate resources to the enterprises’ risk points to ensure the normal operation of a chemical enterprise.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, Fang & Gao, Yue & Dong, Wenxu & Li, Zhiwei & Jia, Xiaoping & Tan, Raymond R., 2017. "Segmented pinch analysis for environmental risk management," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 353-361.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:122:y:2017:i:c:p:353-361
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.03.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344917300903
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.03.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Noguchi, Takafumi & Park, Won-Jun & Kitagaki, Ryoma, 2015. "Risk evaluation for recycled aggregate according to deleterious impurity content considering deconstruction scenarios and production methods," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 104(PB), pages 405-416.
    2. Mangla, Sachin Kumar & Kumar, Pradeep & Barua, Mukesh Kumar, 2015. "Risk analysis in green supply chain using fuzzy AHP approach: A case study," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 104(PB), pages 375-390.
    3. Lin, Boqiang & Long, Houyin, 2016. "Emissions reduction in China׳s chemical industry – Based on LMDI," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1348-1355.
    4. Alessio Ishizaka & Ashraf Labib, 2014. "A hybrid and integrated approach to evaluate and prevent disasters," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 65(10), pages 1475-1489, October.
    5. Laffont, Jean-Jacques, 1995. "Regulation, moral hazard and insurance of environmental risks," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 319-336, November.
    6. Mirabi, Mehrdad & Mianabadi, Hojjat & Zarghami, Mahdi & Sharifi, Mohammad Bagher & Mostert, Erik, 2014. "Risk-based evaluation of wastewater treatment projects: A case study in Niasar city, Iran," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 168-177.
    7. Tan, Raymond R. & Foo, Dominic C.Y., 2007. "Pinch analysis approach to carbon-constrained energy sector planning," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1422-1429.
    8. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    9. Li, Wing-Yan & Choi, Tsan-Ming & Chow, Pui-Sze, 2015. "Risk and benefits brought by formal sustainability programs on fashion enterprises under market disruption," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 104(PB), pages 348-353.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bari L. Bendell, 2022. "Environmental investment decisions of family firms—An analysis of competitor and government influence," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 1-14, January.
    2. Jonathan M. Karpoff, 2021. "On a stakeholder model of corporate governance," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 50(2), pages 321-343, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marta Negri & Enrico Cagno & Claudia Colicchia & Joseph Sarkis, 2021. "Integrating sustainability and resilience in the supply chain: A systematic literature review and a research agenda," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(7), pages 2858-2886, November.
    2. Prakash, Chandra & Barua, M.K., 2016. "An analysis of integrated robust hybrid model for third-party reverse logistics partner selection under fuzzy environment," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 63-81.
    3. Vivek Agrawal & Rajendra P. Mohanty & Sucheta Agarwal & Jitendra Kumar Dixit & Anand M. Agrawal, 2023. "Analyzing critical success factors for sustainable green supply chain management," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 8233-8258, August.
    4. Riya Sureka & Satish Kumar & Deepraj Mukherjee & Christina Theodoraki, 2023. "What restricts SMEs from adopting sophisticated capital budgeting practices?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 265-290, January.
    5. Yuan, Tiejiang & Mao, Yaling, 2024. "A review of pinch analysis techniques and extended application in power systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    6. Yuji Sato & Kim Hua Tan, 2023. "Inconsistency indices in pairwise comparisons: an improvement of the Consistency Index," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 809-830, July.
    7. Ho, William & Ma, Xin, 2018. "The state-of-the-art integrations and applications of the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(2), pages 399-414.
    8. Anna Tóth-Merényi & Csaba Mihálykó & Éva Orbán-Mihálykó & László Gyarmati, 2025. "Exploring Consistency in the Three-Option Davidson Model: Bridging Pairwise Comparison Matrices and Stochastic Methods," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-22, April.
    9. Reza Banai, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    10. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    11. Seung-Jin Han & Won-Jae Lee & So-Hee Kim & Sang-Hoon Yoon & Hyunwoong Pyun, 2022. "Assessing Expected Long-term Benefits for the Olympic Games: Delphi-AHP Approach from Korean Olympic Experts," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    12. Kamila Hodasová & Dávid Krčmář & Ivana Ondrejková, 2025. "Satellite-based drought assessment: integrating AHP method and fuzzy logic for comprehensive vulnerability and risk analysis," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 121(10), pages 11609-11632, June.
    13. Seyed Rakhshan & Ali Kamyad & Sohrab Effati, 2015. "Ranking decision-making units by using combination of analytical hierarchical process method and Tchebycheff model in data envelopment analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 505-525, March.
    14. V. Srinivasan & G. Shainesh & Anand K. Sharma, 2015. "An approach to prioritize customer-based, cost-effective service enhancements," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(14), pages 747-762, October.
    15. Mónica García-Melón & Blanca Pérez-Gladish & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Paz Mendez-Rodriguez, 2016. "Assessing mutual funds’ corporate social responsibility: a multistakeholder-AHP based methodology," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 244(2), pages 475-503, September.
    16. Panagiotis Ravanos & Giannis Karagiannis, 2023. "Correction: A VEA Benefit-of-the-Doubt Model for the HDI," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 170(2), pages 793-796, November.
    17. Luis Pérez-Domínguez & Luis Alberto Rodríguez-Picón & Alejandro Alvarado-Iniesta & David Luviano Cruz & Zeshui Xu, 2018. "MOORA under Pythagorean Fuzzy Set for Multiple Criteria Decision Making," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-10, April.
    18. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    19. Kumar B, Pradeep, 2021. "Changing Objectives of Firms and Managerial Preferences: A Review of Models in Microeconomics," MPRA Paper 106967, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 13 Mar 2021.
    20. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2018. "σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices," MPRA Paper 83569, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:122:y:2017:i:c:p:353-361. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kai Meng (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/resources-conservation-and-recycling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.