JEP  Vol.4 No.1 B , January 2013
Prioritizing the Best Areas for Treated Wastewater Use Using RCP 8.5
Abstract: The goal of this study is to develop a new framework that prioritizes the best sites for treated wastewater (TWW) use considering climate change impacts. Fuzzy TOPSIS which is a kind of multi-criteria decision making techniques was introduced to reflect the uncertainty of input data and criteria weighting values. Representative concentration pathway 8.5 scenario was included into the hydrologic simulations for the climate change impact to hydrologic regimes using hydrological simulation program-Fortran (HSPF). Furthermore, all year scenarios were considered to determine the rankings, respectively. It can take into consideration the uncertainty of time periods which always exists in all climate change scenarios. This study can be a baseline to start to combine the fuzzy multi-criteria decision making techniques with robust prioritization for climate change adaptation strategies.
Cite this paper: S. Jeon, E. Chung, Y. Kim and S. Lee, "Prioritizing the Best Areas for Treated Wastewater Use Using RCP 8.5," Journal of Environmental Protection, Vol. 4 No. 1, 2013, pp. 56-61. doi: 10.4236/jep.2013.41B011.

[1]   B. Nijssen, G.M. O’Donnell, A.F. Hamlet and D.P. Let-tenmaier, “Hydrologic sensitivity of global rivers to cli-mate change,” Climatic Change, Vol. 50, No. 1, 2001, pp. 143-175.

[2]   R.J. Lempert, M.E. Schlesinger, “Robust strategies for abating climate change,” Climatic Change, Vol. 45, No. 3, 2000, pp. 387-401.

[3]   S. Dessai, X. Lu, J.S. Risbey, “On the role of climate scenarios for adaptation planning.” Global Environmen-tal Change, Vol. 15, 2005, pp. 87-97.

[4]   J.S. Yang, E.S. Chung, S.U. Kim, T.W. Kim, “Prioritization of water management under climate change and urbanization using multi-criteria decision making methods.” Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 16, 2012, pp. 801-814.

[5]   J.J. Dooley, and K.V. Calvin, “Temporal and spatial deployment of Carbon Dioxide capture and storage technologies across the Representative Concentration Pathways.” Energy Procedia, Vol. 4, 2011, pp. 5845-5852.

[6]   K. Riahi, A. Gruebler, N. Nakicenovic, “Scenarios of long-term socio-economic and environmental development under climate stabilization”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 74, 2007, pp. 887-935.

[7]   C.L. Hwang, K. Yoon, “Multiple Attributes Decision Making Methods and Applications,” Springer, Heidelberg, 1981.

[8]   H.S. Shih, H.J. Shyur, E.S. Lee, “An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making,” Mathematical Computer Modeling, Vol. 45, 2007, pp. 801-813.

[9]   H.C. Zhou, G.L. Wang, and Q. Yang, “A multi-objective fuzzy pattern recognition model for assessing groundwater vulnerability based on the DRASTIC system,” Hydrological Science Journal, Vol. 44, 1999, pp. 611-618.

[10]   J. Ganoulis, “Evaluating alternative strategies for wastewater recycling and reuse in the Mediterranean area,” Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, Vol. 3, 2003, pp. 11-19.

[11]   E.S. Chung, K.S. Lee, “Prioritization of water management for sustainability using hydrologic simulation model and multi-criteria decision making techniques,” Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 91, 2009, pp. 1502-1511.

[12]   E.S. Chung, W.P. Hong, K.S. Lee, S.J. Burian, “Integrated use of a continuous simulation model and multi-attribute decision making for ranking urban watershed management alternatives.” Water Resources management, Vol. 25, pp. 641-658.

[13]   Y. Kim, E.S. Chung, “Integrated assessment of climate change and urbanization impact on adaptation strategies: A case study in two small Korean watersheds.” Climatic Change, DOI 10.1007/s10584-012-0612-4.