Resources and environmental systems management under synchronic interval uncertainties

  • Guanhui Cheng
  • Guohe Huang
  • Cong Dong
  • Ying Lv
  • Junlong Zhang
  • Yao Yao
  • Xiujuan Chen
Original Paper
  • 50 Downloads

Abstract

Resources and environmental systems management (RESM) is challenged by the synchronic effects of interval uncertainties in the related practices. The synchronic interval uncertainties are misrepresented as random variables, fuzzy sets, or interval numbers in conventional RESM programming techniques including stochastic programming. This may lead to ineffectiveness of resources allocation, high costs of recourse measures, increased risks of unreasonable decisions, and decreased optimality of system profits. To fill the gap of few corresponding studies, a synchronic interval linear programming (SILP) method is proposed in this study. The proposition of interval sets and interval functions and coupling them with linear programming models lead to development of an SILP model for RESM. This enables incorporation of interval uncertainties in resource constraints and synchronic interval uncertainties in the programming objective into the optimization process. An analysis of the distribution-independent geometric properties of the feasible regions of SILP models results in proposition of constraint violation likelihoods. The tradeoff between system optimality and constraint violation is analyzed. The overall optimality of SILP systems under synchronic intervalness is quantified through proposition of integrally optimal solutions. Integration of these efforts leads to a violation-constrained interval integral method for optimization of RESM systems under synchronic interval uncertainties. Comparisons with selected existing methods reveal the effectiveness of SILP at eliminating negativity of synchronic intervalness, enabling risk management of and achieving overall optimality of RESM systems, and enhancing the reliability of optimization techniques for RESM problems. The exploited framework for analyzing synchronic interval uncertainties in RESM systems is helpful for addressing synchronisms of other uncertainties such as randomness or fuzziness and avoiding the resultant decision mistakes and disasters due to neglecting them.

Keywords

Resources and environmental systems management Synchronic interval uncertainty Interval linear programming Interaction Risk analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Key Research and Development Plan (2016YFC0502800, 2016YFA0601502), the Natural Sciences Foundation (51520105013, 51679087), the 111 Project (B14008) and the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada. We are very grateful to the editor and two anonymous peer reviewers who provided many constructive comments on how to improve our manuscript.

References

  1. Ahmad A, El-Shafie A, Razali SFM, Mohamad ZS (2014) Reservoir optimization in water resources: a review. Water Resour Manage 28(11):3391–3405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alefeld G, Mayer G (2000) Interval analysis: theory and applications. J Comput Appl Math 121(1):421–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson DR, Sweeney DJ, Williams TA, Camm JD (2015) An introduction to management science: quantitative approaches to decision making (Chapter 2). Cengage Learning, p 30Google Scholar
  4. Banos R, Manzano-Agugliaro F, Montoya FG, Gil C, Alcayde A, Gómez J (2011) Optimization methods applied to renewable and sustainable energy: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15(4):1753–1766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ben-Tal A, El Ghaoui L, Nemirovski A (2009) Robust optimization. Princeton Series in Applied Mathematics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 9–16Google Scholar
  6. Ben-Tal A, Nemirovski A (2002) Robust optimization–methodology and applications. Math Program 92(3):453–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertsimas D, Brown DB, Caramanis C (2011) Theory and applications of robust optimization. SIAM Rev 53(3):464–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bertsimas D, Sim M (2004) The price of robustness. Oper Res 52(1):35–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birge JR, Louveaux F (2011) Introduction to stochastic programming. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bitran GR (1980) Linear multiple objective problems with interval coefficients. Manage Sci 26(7):694–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chanas S, Kuchta D (1996) Multiobjetive programming in optimization of interval objective functions: a generalized approach. Eur J Oper Res 94:594–598Google Scholar
  12. Charnes A, Cooper WW (1959) Chance-constrained programming. Manag Sci 6(1):73–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Charnes A, Granot F, Phillips F (1977) An algorithm for solving interval linear programming problems. Oper Res 25:688–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cheng GH, Huang GH, Dong C (2015a) Synchronic interval Gaussian mixed-integer programming for air quality management. Sci Total Environ Elsevier 538(15):986–996Google Scholar
  15. Cheng GH, Huang GH, Dong C (2015b) Interval recourse linear programming for resources and environmental systems management under uncertainty. J Environ Inf (International Society of Environmental Information Sciences). Online expressGoogle Scholar
  16. Cheng GH, Huang GH, Dong C (2017) Convex contractive interval linear programming for resources and environmental systems management. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 31(1):205–224Google Scholar
  17. Cheng GH, Huang GH, Li YP, Cao MF, Fan YR (2009) Planning of municipal solid waste management systems under dual uncertainties: a hybrid interval stochastic programming approach. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 23(6):707–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chinneck JW, Ramadan K (2000) Linear programming with interval coefficients. J Oper Res Soc 51(2):209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dantzig GB (1947) Maximization of a linear function of variables subject to linear inequalities. Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation, New York-London 339–347Google Scholar
  20. Dantzig GB (1963) Linear programming and extensions. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dantzig GB, Wolfe P (1960) The decomposition principle for linear programs. Oper Res 8:101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dong C, Huang GH, Cai YP, Li W, Cheng GH (2014a) Fuzzy interval programming for energy and environmental systems management under constraint-violation and energy-substitution effects: a case study for the city of Beijing. Energy Econ 11(2014):46. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2014.09.024 Google Scholar
  23. Dong C, Huang GH, Cai YP, Liu Y (2012) An inexact optimization modeling approach for supporting energy systems planning and air pollution mitigation in Beijing City. Energy (Elsevier) 37(1):673–688Google Scholar
  24. Dong C, Huang GH, Cai YP, Liu Y (2013a) Robust planning of energy management systems with environmental and constraint-conservative considerations under multiple uncertainties. Energy Convers Manag 65:471–486. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2012.09.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dong C, Huang GH, Cai YP, Xu Y (2011) An interval-parameter minimax regret programming approach for power management systems planning under uncertainty. Appl Energy 88(8–88):2835–2845. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.01.056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dong C, Huang GH, Cai YP, Yue WC, Rong QQ (2014b) An interval-parameter fuzzy linear programming approach for accounting and planning of energy-environmental management systems. J Environ Account Manag 2(1):13–29. doi: 10.5890/JEAM.2014.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dong C, Huang GH, Tan Q (2015) A robust optimization modelling approach for managing water and farmland use between anthropogenic modification and ecosystems protection under uncertainties. Ecol Eng 76:95–109. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dong C, Huang GH, Tan Q, Cai YP (2014c) Coupled planning of water resources and agricultural land-use based on an inexact-stochastic programming model. Front Earth Sci. doi: 10.1007/s11707-013-0388-5 Google Scholar
  29. Dong C, Tan Q, Huang GH, Cai YP (2013b) A dual-inexact fuzzy stochastic model for water resources management and non-point source pollution mitigation under multiple uncertainties. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. doi: 10.5194/hessd-11-987-2014 Google Scholar
  30. Gabrel V, Murat C, Thiele A (2014) Recent advances in robust optimization: an overview. Eur J Oper Res 235(3):471–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grinstead C, Snell JL (1997) Introduction to probability. American Mathematical Society, Providence, pp 10–11Google Scholar
  32. Hladık M (2012) Interval linear programming: a survey. In: Mann ZA (ed) Linear Programming-New frontiers in theory and applications, ch 2. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp 85–120Google Scholar
  33. Huang GH, Baetz BW, Patry GG (1992) An interval linear programming approach for municipal solid waste management planning under uncertainty. Civ Eng Syst 9:319–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Inuiguchi M (1993) Fuzzy mathematical programming. Fuzzy Operations Research, Nikkan Kougyou Sinbunsha, Tokyo, pp 41–90Google Scholar
  35. Inuiguchi M, Ramík J (2000) Possibilistic linear programming: a brief review of fuzzy mathematical programming and a comparison with stochastic programming in portfolio selection problem. Fuzzy Sets Syst 111(1):3–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Inuiguchi M, Ramik J, Tanino T, Vlach M (2003) Satisficing solutions and duality in interval and fuzzy linear programming. Fuzzy Sets Syst 135:151–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Inuiguchi M, Sakawa M (1995) Minimax regret solution to linear programming problems with an interval objective function. Eur J Oper Res 86:526–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Inuiguchi M, Sakawa M (1997) An achievement rate approach to linear programming problems with an interval objective function. J Oper Res Soc 48(1):25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ishibuchi H, Tanaka H (1990) Multiobjective programming in optimization of the interval objective function. Eur J Oper Res 48:219–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ivanov D, Dolgui A, Sokolov B (2012) Applicability of optimal control theory to adaptive supply chain planning and scheduling. Annu Rev Control 36(1):73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jamison KD, Lodwick WA (2001) Fuzzy linear programming using a penalty method. Fuzzy Sets Syst 119:97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kahraman C (2008) Fuzzy multi-criteria decision making: theory and applications with recent developments. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kantorovich LV (1940) A new method of solving some classes of extremal problems. Doklady Akad Sci USSR 28:211–214Google Scholar
  44. Klaus M, Albert T (1995) Monte Carlo sampling of solutions to inverse problems. J Geophys Res 100(B7):12431–12447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lee JH (2011) Model predictive control: review of the three decades of development. Int J Control Autom Syst 9(3):415–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Levin VI (1994) Boolean linear programming with interval coefficients. Autom Remote Control 55:1019–1028Google Scholar
  47. Lin MH, Tsai JF, Yu CS (2012) A review of deterministic optimization methods in engineering and management. Math Probl Eng 2012:1–15Google Scholar
  48. Luhandjula MK (2014) Fuzzy optimization: milestones and perspectives. Fuzzy Sets Syst 274:4–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Maqsood I, Huang GH (2003) A two-stage interval-stochastic programming model for waste management under uncertainty. J Air Waste Manag Assoc Air Waste Manag Assoc 53(5):540–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mérel P, Howitt R (2014) Theory and application of positive mathematical programming in agriculture and the environment. Annu Rev Resour Econ 6(1):451–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Metropolis N, Ulam S (1949) The monte carlo method. J Am Stat Assoc 44(247):335–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Moore RE (1979) Method and application of interval analysis. SIAM, PhiladelphiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Peter K, Mayer J (1976) Stochastic linear programming. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  54. Prékopa A (1990) Sharp bound on probabilities using linear programming. Oper Res 38:227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Psacharopoulos G (2014) Economics of education: research and studies. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  56. Quaeghebeur E, Shariatmadar K, De Cooman G (2012) Constrained optimization problems under uncertainty with coherent lower previsions. Fuzzy Sets Syst 206:74–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rommelfanger H, Hanuscheck R, Wolf J (1989) Linear programming with fuzzy objectives. Fuzzy Sets Syst 29:31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ruszczynski A, Shapiro A (2003) Stochastic programming. Handbooks in operations research and management science. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  59. Sengupta A, Pal TK (2000) On comparing interval sets. Eur J Oper Res 127:28–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sengupta A, Pal TK, Chakraborty D (2001) Interpretation of inequality constraints involving interval coefficients and a solution to interval linear programming. Fuzzy Sets Syst 119:129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Soyster AL (1973) Technical note: convex programming with set-inclusive constraints and applications to inexact linear programming. Oper Res 21(5):1154–1157Google Scholar
  62. Steuer RE (1981) Algorithms for linear programming problems with interval objective function coefficients. Math Oper Res 6:33–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tang SC, Zhou S (2012) Research advances in environmentally and socially sustainable operations. Eur J Oper Res 223(3):585–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tong SC (1994) Interval set and fuzzy number linear programming. Fuzzy Sets Syst 66:301–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Energy, Environment and Sustainable CommunitiesUniversity of ReginaReginaCanada
  2. 2.Institute for Energy, Environment and Sustainability ResearchUR-BNUReginaCanada
  3. 3.School of Traffic and TransportationBeijing Jiaotong UniversityBeijingChina
  4. 4.Resources and Environmental Research AcademyNorth China Electric Power UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations