Study on ecological environment quality evaluation of the energy consumption pollution treatment in industrial parks

Abstract

In order to explore the effective method of ecological environment quality evaluation the of environmental pollution treatment of energy consumption emits in industrial parks in China, based on a literature review, 21 evaluation indicators of four types were selected in this paper. With a hierarchical analysis method used to determine the relative weights of each evaluation indicator, and a two-level comprehensive fuzzy evaluation model reconstructed, a comprehensive evaluation study of ecological environment quality was carried out, taking the Nanjing MV Industrial Park as the research object. The evaluation results show that it can be seen that the ecological environment quality of the Nanjing MV Industrial Park has improved in certain degree. The evaluation results are in line with the actual situation, which verifies the validity of the comprehensive fuzzy evaluation model for the comprehensive evaluation of ecological environment quality. The research results have a guiding role for the management practice of environmental pollution in industrial parks and have a significant theoretical support for the government to formulate the ecological environment quality standards and related policies of industrial parks.

Graphical Abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Abbreviations

MV:

The name of the target company is not authorized to be expressed in letters

AHP:

Analytic hierarchy process

CR:

Consistency check ratio

RI:

Random consistency index

CI:

Consistency indicators

EEQ:

Ecological environment quality

EPT:

Environmental pollution treatment

References

  1. Alilou H, Rahmati Q, Singh VP, Choubin B, Sadeghi SH (2019) Evaluation of watershed health using fuzzy-ANP approach considering geo-environmental and topo-hydrological criteria. J Environ Manag 232:22–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Armitage DR (2005) Collaborative environmental assessment in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Environ Impact Assess Rev 25(3):239–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2004.06.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Atanassov K (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20:87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(86)80034-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brehm C, Layton A (2019) Designing eco-industrial parks in a nested structure to mimic mutualistic ecological networks. Procedia CIRP 80:590–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.12.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Burger J, Gochfeld M, Kosson DS et al (2019) Evaluation of ecological resources at operating facilities at contaminated sites: the Department of Energy’s Hanford Site as a case study. Environ Res 2019(170):452–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.12.052

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Burillo P, Bustince H (1996) Vague sets are intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 79:403–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(96)84611-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cardenas IC, Halman JIM (2016) Coping with uncertainty in environmental impact assessments: open techniques. Environ Impact Assess Rev 60:24–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.02.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Çelekli A, Toudjani AA, Lekesiz HÖ, Cetin T (2018) Ecological quality assessment of running waters in the North Aegean catchment with diatom metrics and multivariate approach. Limnologica 73:20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.limno.2018.09.001

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cheng JH, Wang R (2018) Study on the evaluation of water ecological environment quality in mining cities of Yangtze River Economic Belt based on the perspective of joint protection. J China Univ Geosci (Soc Sci Ed) 7:1–11. https://doi.org/10.16493/j.cnki.42-1627/c.2018.04.001

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Debnath J, Majumder D, Biswas A (2018) Air qualityassessment using weighted interval type-2 fuzzy inference system. Ecol Inform 46:133–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2018.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dembowska EA, Napiórkowski P, Mieszczankin T, Józefowicz S (2015) Planktonic indices in the evaluation of the ecological status and the trophic state of the longest lake in Poland. Ecol Indic 56:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dong SY, Yang X, Wang XL, Feng ZK, Jia WJ (2013) Yongding River Basin ecological environmental quality evaluation. Chin Popul, Resour Environ 12:348–351 https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFQ&dbname=CJFDHIS2&filename=ZGRZ2013S2089&v=

    Google Scholar 

  13. Doxiadis CA (1970) Ekistics, the science of human settlements. Science 170(3956):393–404. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.170.3956.393

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Geldermann J, Gabriel R, Rentz O (1999) Ecological assessment of the environmental impacts of the kerosene burning in jet turbines and its improvement assessment. Environ Sci Pollut Res 6:115–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02987564

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Han XY, Sun T (n.d.) Research on comprehensive assessment of ecological environment quality in oil exploitation region. Environmental Science and Management, 2016, 41(4): 161-166. https://elksslcc0eb1c56d2d940cf2d0186445b0c858elksslportal.i.nuaa.edu.cn:4443/kns/brief/result.aspx?dbPrefix=CJFQ

  16. Jiang PF (2020) Assessment of air quality based on the improved fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model with entropy weight. Water Conserv Sci Technol Econ 26(3):57–60+80. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-7175.2020.03.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kharat MG, Murthy S, Kamble SJ, Raut RD, Kharat MG (2019) Fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis for environmentally conscious solid waste treatment and disposal technology selection. Technol Soc 57:20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.12.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kumar S, Dhar H, Nair VV, Rena, Govani J, Arya S, Bhattacharya JK, Vaidya AN, Akolkar AB (2019) Environmental quality monitoring and impact assessment of solid waste dumpsites in high altitude sub-tropical regions. J Environ Manag 25215:109681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109681

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kuznets S (1955) Economic growth and income inequality. Am Econ Rev 45(1):1–28 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259742109_Economic_Growth_and_Income_Inequality

    Google Scholar 

  20. Li QF, Yao J, Huang XL et al (2019) Ecological risk evaluation and health risk assessment on heavy metals in sludge of the sewage treatment plant in Qianjiang District. J Southwest Univ (Nat Sci Ed) 41(3):120–129. https://doi.org/10.13718/j.cnki.xdzk.2019.03.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Liu XW (2005) Evaluation of agricultural ecological environment quality in typical county of Yangtze River Delta. Syst Eng Theory Pract 6:133–138 https://elksslcc0eb1c56d2d940cf2d0186445b0c858elksslportal.i.nuaa.edu.cn:4443/kns/brief/result.aspx?dbPrefix=CJFQ

    Google Scholar 

  22. Liu R, Wang SX, Zhou Y, Yao Y, Han XD (2012) Research on regional environmental quality assessment model based on remote sensing technology. China Environ Sci 1:181–186 https://kns.cnki.net/kns/brief/default_result.aspx

    Google Scholar 

  23. Liu XY, Charles M, Bakshi BR (2019) Including ecosystem services in life cycle assessment: methodology and application to urban farms. Procedia CIRP 80:287–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.12.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mirmohammadi M, Gholamnejad J, Fattahpour V, Seyedsadri P, Ghorbani Y (2009) Designing of an environmental assessment algorithm for surface mining projects. J Environ Manag 90(8):22422–22435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Parson EA (1995) Integrated assessment and environmental policy making: in pursuit of usefulness. Energy Policy 23(3/4):463–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(95)90170-C

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ramos NR, Picón LB, Trivellone V et al (2019) Ecological infrastructures across Mediterranean agroecosystems: towards an effective tool for evaluating their ecological quality. Agric Syst 173:355–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.03.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ren ZL, Xu ZH, Wang H (2018) Normal wiggly hesitant fuzzy sets and their application to environmental quality evaluation. Knowl-Based Syst 159:286–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.06.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Royo CLY, Casazza G, Martini CP, Pergent G (2010) A biotic index using the seagrass Posidonia oceanica (BiPo), to evaluate ecological status of coastal waters. Ecol Indic 10(2):380–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.07.005

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15:234–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Seyedmohammadi J, Sarmadian F, Jafarzadeh AA, McDowell RW (2019) Development of a model using matter element, AHP and GIS techniques to assess the suitability of land for agriculture. Geoderma 352:80–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.05.046

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Silva LT, Mendes B, Oliveira C, Reis C, Silva P, F.Silva J (2019) Contribution of an environmental monitoring system to evaluate the potential effect of urban air pollution. Procedia Struct Integr 22:130–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2020.01.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Son J, Kim JG, Hyun S, Cho K (2019) Screening level ecological risk assessment of abandoned metal mines using chemical and ecotoxicological lines of evidence. Environ Pollut 2019(249):1081–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.03.019

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Steinemann A (2001) Improving alternatives for environmental impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 21(1):3–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(00)00075-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Stossel Z, Kissinger M, Meir A (2015) Assessing the state of environmental quality in cities–a multi-component urban performance (EMCUP) index. Environ Pollut 206:679–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.07.036

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Świerkosz BS (2017) Application of surrogate measures of ecological quality assessment: the introduction of the indicator of ecological landscape quality (IELQ). Ecol Indic 73:224–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.09.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Toroimac GI, Zaharia L, Neculau G et al (2020) Translating a river’s ecological quality in ecosystem services: an example of public perception in Romania. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 20(1):31–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2019.10.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Wang ZL (1985) Preliminary discussion on ecological environmental quality evaluation in Minjiang River Basin. J Ecol 10:28–32. https://doi.org/10.13292/j.1000-4890.1985.0089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang WX, Jiang ZL, Liu Y (1996) Evaluation index system and forecast of urban ecological environment quality in Chengdu. J Sichuan Normal Univ (Nat Sci Ed) 1:79–89 https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFD9697&filename=SCSD601.010

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wang B, Xie HL, Ren HY, Li X, Wu BC (2019) Application of AHP, TOPSIS, and TFNs to plant selection for phytoremediation of petroleum-contaminated soils in shale gas and oil fields. J Clean Prod 233:13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.301

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Xin WJ, Wu CJ (2009) Analysis of ecological environmental quality evaluation in Sanjiangyuan District. Qinghai Soc Sci 1:59–62. https://doi.org/10.14154/j.cnki.qss.2009.01.038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Xu SB, Xu DS, Liu LL (2019) Construction of regional informatization ecological environment based on the entropy weight modified AHP hierarchy model. Sustain Comput: Inform Syst 22:26–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suscom.2019.01.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Zeng GQ, Li HW (1987) Preliminary discussion on rural ecological environmental quality indicator system: evaluation of ecological environmental quality in Yuanmou County, Yunnan Province. Ecol Econ 5:14–16 https://kns.cnki.net/kns/brief/result.aspx?dbPrefix=CJFQ

    Google Scholar 

  44. Zhao Y, An GA, Shi S et al (2018) Application of grey relational degree analysis in surface. Pollut Control Technol 32(1):9–11 +41 https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFQ&dbname=CJFDLAST2019&filename=WRFZ201901005&v

    Google Scholar 

  45. Zhou HR (2000) Xinjiang ecological environment quality evaluation indicator system research. China Environ Sci 4:150–153 https://kns.cnki.net/kns/brief/default_result.aspx

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank for the research materials provided by the Nanjing MV Industrial Park, and the editors and review experts for their constructive comments on the paper.

Funding

The authors thank the National Office for philosophy and Social Sciences for its financial support. This work has received funding from the general project of the National Social Science Foundation of China: “Research on mechanism and supportive polices of environmental pollution cooperative governance in the process of regional integration development of the Yangtze river delta” (approval number: 19BJL035).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiuyan Han.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Highlights

• Research on the evaluation of the ecological and environmental quality of industrial parks

• Use the AHP and expert survey to determine the index weight

• Adopt the two-level fuzzy evaluation model for evaluation

• Take Nanjing MV industry as an example

Responsible editor: Philippe Loubet

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Han, X., Cao, T. Study on ecological environment quality evaluation of the energy consumption pollution treatment in industrial parks. Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10147-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ecological environment quality evaluation
  • Environmental pollution treatment
  • Hierarchical analysis method
  • Comprehensive fuzzy evaluation model
  • Industrial park