Multiobjective Risk/Cost Analysis of Artificial Marine Systems Using Decision Trees and Fuzzy Expert Estimations

  • E. Levner
  • J. Ganoulis
  • I. Linkov
  • Y. Benayahu
Conference paper
Part of the NATO Security through Science Series book series (NASTC)

Abstract

This study is devoted to the analysis of Artificial Marine Systems (AMS) and their optimisation with emphasis on their role of mitigating anthropogenic and technological threats to the environment. Historically, AMS were created and used to enhance fishing catches, protect coastal zones and maintain biodiversity. In recent years, great strides have been made in the understanding of AMS as multifunctional tools to study, monitor and even influence the global warming processes. In fact AMS can serve as global bio-filters and controllable sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in the long run mitigating global warming and enhancing sustainable preservation of marine resources. A fuzzy expert system based on the Mamdani-Sugeno modus operandi has been designed, enabling a risk/cost/benefit analysis to be performed, environmental risk to be minimised, and the optimal structure of an AMS (location, cost, size, geometrical forms, etc.) to be found. Special attention is given to the protection of the coral reef in the Eilat-Aqaba Gulf in the Red Sea.

Keywords

Dioxide Dust Bromide Nitrite Beach 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baine, M. (2001) Artificial reefs: a review of their design, application, management and performance. Ocean and Coastal Management, 44: 241–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benayahu, Y. (1985) Faunistic composition and patterns in the distribution of soft corals (Octocorallia Alconacea) along the coral reefs of Sinai Peninsula. Proc 5th Int Coral Reef Symp 6: 255–260.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benayahu, Y., & Loya, Y. (1987) Long-term recruitment of soft corals (Octocorallia: Alcyonacea) on artificial substrata at Eilat (Red Sea). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 38: 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bell, M. 2002 Marine Artificial Reefs. South Carolina Office of Fisheries Management, Technical Report.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boersma P., J.K. Parrish, 1999. Limiting abuse: Marine protecting areas, a limited solution. Ecol. Econ., 31, 287–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Claudet, J., and D. Pelletier, 2004, Marine protected areas and artificial reefs: A review of the interactions between management and scientific studies, Aquatic Living Resources, 17, 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ganoulis, J. 2004 Integrated Risk Analysis for Sustainable Water Resources Management In: Comparative Risk Assessment and Environmental Decision Making, 275–285, NATO Science Series, Kluwer Academic, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ganoulis J. 1994 Engineering Risk Analysis of Water Pollution: Probabilities and Fuzzy Sets, WILEY-VCH, Weinheim, New York, Basel, Cambridge, Tokyo, 306 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Linkov I., and A.B. Ramadan (eds), Comparative Risk Assessment and Environmental Decision Making, Springer, Berlin, 2004.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Levner E., et al., 1993, Modern Mathematical Methods of Optimisation, Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 416 pp.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Levner E., A. Ptuskin and A. Friedman, Fuzzy Sets and Systems: Theory and Applications, Foreword by Prof. Lotfi Zadeh, Russian Academy of Sciences, CEMI Press, Moscow, 1998, 110 pp. (Russian).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Levner, E., and J.-M. Proth, 2003, Strategic Risk Management of Marine Ecosystems. A mini-course of lectures presented at the NATO Advanced Study Institute meeting “Strategic Management of Marine Ecossystems”, October 1–10, 2003, Nice, France. Published in Strategic Management of Marine Ecosystems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2005).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Love M.S., M. Nishimoto, and D. Schroeder, 2001, The ecological role of natural reefs and oil and gas production platforms on fishes in Southern California, US Geological Survey, OCS Study, MMS 2001–028 (see also www.id.ucsb.edu: 16080/lovelab/Report.html)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marusich, L.J., 2001. The application of fuzzy logic analysis to assessing the significance of environmental impacts: Case Studies from Mexico and Canada, Research and DevelopmenMonograph Series, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Hull, Quebec, Canada, ISBN 0-662-34457.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ministry of Environment of Israel, The Environment in Israel, Jerusalem, 2002.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nautilus Consultants Ltd., 2003, Artificial Reefs in Scotland: Benefits, Costs and Risks, Technical Report, March 2003, Edinburgh, Scotland. (Also available at http://www.nautilusconsultants.co.uk/-pdfs/Nautilus%20artificial%20reefs%20 report.pdf)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Szedlmayer, S., 1994 Artificial reefs design, planning and permitting. Aubern University Marine Extension & Research Centre.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    USA EPA, Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, USA Environmental Protection Agency, PA, 1991. http://www.epa.gov/superfiind/programs/risk/ecolgc.htm.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Whitmarsh, D, Pickering, H., 1997 Commercial exploitation of artificial reefs: economic opportunities and management imperatives. CEMARE Report.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Levner
    • 1
  • J. Ganoulis
    • 2
  • I. Linkov
    • 3
  • Y. Benayahu
    • 4
  1. 1.Holon Academic Institute of TechnologyHolonIsrael
  2. 2.Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Department of Civil EngineeringThessalonikiGreece
  3. 3.INTERTOX, Inc.BrooklineUSA
  4. 4.Tel Aviv UniversityIsrael

Personalised recommendations