IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i8p2438-d225654.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of the Construction and Investment Process of a High-Pressure Gas Pipeline with Use of the Trenchless Method and Open Excavation Method. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Author

Listed:
  • Urszula Kwast-Kotlarek

    (Operator Gazociągów Przesyłowych GAZ-SYSTEM S. A. Oddział we Wrocławiu, 50-513 Wrocław, Poland)

  • Maria Hełdak

    (Department of Spatial Economy, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, 50-375 Wrocław, Poland)

Abstract

The study presents the application of multi-criteria analysis, i.e., the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), for the evaluation of investments related to the realisation of a high-pressure gas pipeline. The authors evaluated the realisation of the gas pipeline with the use of alternative methods: the trenchless Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) method and the open excavation method, based on the example of the construction of a high-pressure gas pipeline DN1000. Sections located in naturally valuable areas on the route of the pipeline Wierzchowice-Kiełczów (Poland) were analysed, on the section from the valve station in Czeszów to the Kiełczów node. The research considered the following criteria: technical costs, economic costs, social costs, and environmental costs. The sum of these partial estimations is the “total cost” of the investment. Research revealed that the technical costs of the open excavation method are in all cases higher than the technological costs of the trenchless method during the realisation of a gas pipeline (in the AHP analysis, they receive an average score of −4 or −3, compared to a score of −2 for the HDD method). On the other hand, the economic costs are comparable, with a slight advantage for the HDD method. The overall score for the open excavation method obtained with use of the AHP multi-criteria evaluation is, for different variants, approximately −19, while the evaluation of the realisation of a gas pipeline with use of the Horizontal Directional Drilling method gives a score from −15 to −10, depending on the section.

Suggested Citation

  • Urszula Kwast-Kotlarek & Maria Hełdak, 2019. "Evaluation of the Construction and Investment Process of a High-Pressure Gas Pipeline with Use of the Trenchless Method and Open Excavation Method. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:8:p:2438-:d:225654
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/8/2438/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/8/2438/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aragonés-Beltrán, Pablo & Chaparro-González, Fidel & Pastor-Ferrando, Juan-Pascual & Pla-Rubio, Andrea, 2014. "An AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process)/ANP (Analytic Network Process)-based multi-criteria decision approach for the selection of solar-thermal power plant investment projects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 222-238.
    2. Ho, William & Xu, Xiaowei & Dey, Prasanta K., 2010. "Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 202(1), pages 16-24, April.
    3. Roszkowska, Ewa & Wachowicz, Tomasz, 2015. "Application of fuzzy TOPSIS to scoring the negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiation problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(3), pages 920-932.
    4. Deason, Kristin S. & Jefferson, Theresa, 2010. "A systems approach to improving fleet policy compliance within the US Federal Government," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 2865-2874, June.
    5. Petra Grošelj & Špela Pezdevšek Malovrh & Lidija Zadnik Stirn, 2011. "Methods based on data envelopment analysis for deriving group priorities in analytic hierarchy process," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 19(3), pages 267-284, September.
    6. Katie Steele & Yohay Carmel & Jean Cross & Chris Wilcox, 2009. "Uses and Misuses of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in Environmental Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 26-33, January.
    7. Thomas L. Saaty, 1994. "How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 19-43, December.
    8. J. Javid, Roxana & Nejat, Ali & Hayhoe, Katharine, 2014. "Selection of CO2 mitigation strategies for road transportation in the United States using a multi-criteria approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 960-972.
    9. Asgari, Nasrin & Hassani, Ashkan & Jones, Dylan & Nguye, Huy Hoang, 2015. "Sustainability ranking of the UK major ports: Methodology and case study," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 19-39.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Shakoor Shahabi, Reza & Basiri, Mohammad Hossein & Rashidi Kahag, Mahdi & Ahangar Zonouzi, Samad, 2014. "An ANP–SWOT approach for interdependency analysis and prioritizing the Iran׳s steel scrap industry strategies," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 18-26.
    2. Dey, Prasanta Kumar & Bhattacharya, Arijit & Ho, William, 2015. "Strategic supplier performance evaluation: A case-based action research of a UK manufacturing organisation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 192-214.
    3. Guido C. Guerrero-Liquet & Santiago Oviedo-Casado & J. M. Sánchez-Lozano & M. Socorro García-Cascales & Javier Prior & Antonio Urbina, 2018. "Determination of the Optimal Size of Photovoltaic Systems by Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-18, December.
    4. Alptekin Ulutaş & Ayşe Topal & Dragan Pamučar & Željko Stević & Darjan Karabašević & Gabrijela Popović, 2022. "A New Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Sustainable Supplier Selection Based on a Novel Grey WISP and Grey BWM Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-20, December.
    5. Jianxiong Zhang & Lin Feng & Wansheng Tang, 2014. "Optimal Contract Design of Supplier-Led Outsourcing Based on Pontryagin Maximum Principle," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 161(2), pages 592-607, May.
    6. Scott, James & Ho, William & Dey, Prasanta K. & Talluri, Srinivas, 2015. "A decision support system for supplier selection and order allocation in stochastic, multi-stakeholder and multi-criteria environments," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 226-237.
    7. 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.
    8. Ventura, José A. & Bunn, Kevin A. & Venegas, Bárbara B. & Duan, Lisha, 2021. "A coordination mechanism for supplier selection and order quantity allocation with price-sensitive demand and finite production rates," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    9. Denys Yemshanov & Frank H. Koch & Yakov Ben‐Haim & Marla Downing & Frank Sapio & Marty Siltanen, 2013. "A New Multicriteria Risk Mapping Approach Based on a Multiattribute Frontier Concept," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1694-1709, September.
    10. Davis-Sramek, Beth & Robinson, Jessica L. & Darby, Jessica L. & Thomas, Rodney W., 2020. "Exploring the differential roles of environmental and social sustainability in carrier selection decisions," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    11. Zhang, Tianyu & Dong, Peiwu & Zeng, Yongchao & Ju, Yanbing, 2022. "Analyzing the diffusion of competitive smart wearable devices: An agent-based multi-dimensional relative agreement model," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 90-105.
    12. Yan Li & Xiaohan Zhang & Kaiyue Lin & Qingbo Huang, 2019. "The Analysis of a Simulation of a Port–City Green Cooperative Development, Based on System Dynamics: A Case Study of Shanghai Port, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-20, October.
    13. Sushil, 2019. "Efficient interpretive ranking process incorporating implicit and transitive dominance relationships," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 283(1), pages 1489-1516, December.
    14. Zhang Chen & Yuanlu Liang & Yangyang Wu & Lijun Sun, 2019. "Research on Comprehensive Multi-Infrastructure Optimization in Transportation Asset Management: The Case of Roads and Bridges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-12, August.
    15. Eleonora Bottani & Piera Centobelli & Teresa Murino & Ehsan Shekarian, 2018. "A QFD-ANP Method for Supplier Selection with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks Considerations," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(03), pages 911-939, May.
    16. Pätäri, Eero & Karell, Ville & Luukka, Pasi & Yeomans, Julian S, 2018. "Comparison of the multicriteria decision-making methods for equity portfolio selection: The U.S. evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(2), pages 655-672.
    17. Bhatta, Arun & Bigsby, Hugh R. & Cullen, Ross, 2011. "Alternative to Comprehensive Ecosystem Services Markets: The Contribution of Forest-Related Programs in New Zealand," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115350, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    18. Dobos, Imre & Vörösmarty, Gyöngyi, 2019. "Inventory-related costs in green supplier selection problems with Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C), pages 374-380.
    19. Caetani, Alberto Pavlick & Ferreira, Luciano & Borenstein, Denis, 2016. "Development of an integrated decision-making method for an oil refinery restructuring in Brazil," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 197-210.
    20. Daniel Schatz & Rabih Bashroush, 0. "Economic valuation for information security investment: a systematic literature review," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-24.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:8:p:2438-:d:225654. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.