Ecological Modelling 135 (2001) 131– 147

www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolmodel

Fuzzy approach to the environmental impact evaluation

Mario Enea a,*, Giuseppe Salemi b
a
Dipartimento di Tecnologia e Produzione Meccanica, Facoltà di Ingegneria, Palermo Uni6ersity, 6iale delle Scienze,
90128 Palermo, Italy
b
Dipartimento di Energetica ed Applicazioni di Fisica, Facoltà di Ingegneria, Palermo Uni6ersity, Palermo, Italy

Received 21 September 1999; received in revised form 20 July 2000; accepted 17 August 2000

Abstract

Because of the imprecision of the ecological impacts and the frequent lack of quantitative information, fuzzy theory
provides a useful approach to the environmental impact evaluation. In this paper, the environmental parameters are
defined through fuzzy numbers. By considering the quality of the global component as derived from primitive
environmental components, for these primitive components the quality is generally derived from their fuzzy physical
parameters. Suitable operators are proposed in order to estimate the global environmental component quality as a
function of environmental primitive components quality that can decrease or increase the environmental quality. Also
in fuzzy form the magnitude of the plant impact factor that strikes the environmental components is esteemed. This
magnitude is a function of environmental parameters that can be fuzzy, as fuzzy can be the relation between these
parameters and the magnitude of the impact factor. Therefore, through the matrix method, the total environmental
impact (T.E.I.) in fuzzy terms is calculated, as in fuzzy form, the percentage of impact on every environmental
component is calculated. A criterion is proposed in order to compare fuzzy T.E.I. for various sceneries. This criterion
is based on a ranking method that considers the grade of prudence of the decision-maker and the acceptable risk.
Finally, a case study is reported as an explanation of the method. © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fuzzy set theory; Environmental impact; Ecological impact; Environmental decision making

1. Introduction in the social sciences, the models based on uncer-

In the physical sciences, we have moved from a
line of thought that considers uncertainty as un-
desirable and to be avoided, to the awareness that
such sciences cannot neglect uncertainty to ex-
plain and to understand certain phenomena. Also
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-91-6657052; fax: + 39-
91-6657039.
E-mail address: enea@dtpm.unipa.it (M. Enea).
tainty may help to understand and to interpret, in
a believable way, certain phenomena that are
characterized by notable complexity, as well as
the uncertainty of variables and relationships.
One of the theories of uncertainty that has
arisen in these last decades is the fuzzy theory
(Zadeh, 1965), which abandons the Aristotelian
logic to two values and defines fuzzy sets as those
whose confinements are not precise but vague.
This theory has the characteristic that it is able to

0304-3800/01/$ - see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 0 4 - 3 8 0 0 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 3 8 0 - X
132 M. Enea, G. Salemi / Ecological Modelling 136 (2001) 131–147
represent the concepts of vagueness that natural
language uses for pointing out qualitative vari-
ables, such as warm, cold, lukewarm etc.
A fuzzy set is defined by assigning to every
object of the question a membership grade to the
whole that represents a concept (Zimmermann
and Zysno, 1991 Klir and Yuan, 1995). Such a
definition is very suggestive, because it allows the
representation of some facts of a qualitative na-
ture. In the case of the environmental quality,
representing it with a precise number (Hobbs et
al., 1989 Salski, 1992) does not give credible re-
sults. Such an observation induced us to try a
different approach in comparison to the ones
traditionally used in environmental impact evalu-
ation (EIE).
Some authors employed the fuzzy logic in order
to face environmental subjects. Salski (1992) in-
troduced the problem of uncertainty in ecological
research by fuzzy logic approach, applying ap-
proximated reasoning to create a fuzzy knowl-
edge-based model. Others have used it to map the
land by remotely sensed imagery (Foody, 1996
Metternicht, 1998); others developed fuzzy clus-
tering for the classification of chemicals in ecotox-
icological data analysis (Friederichs et al., 1996
Melcher and Matthies, 1996) and of sites sus-
pected of being contaminated (Lhen and Temme,
1996).
Silvert (1997) describes an ecological impact
analysis approach by fuzzy logic; he also proposes
fuzzy combination rules for partial memberships
of impact and defuzzification rules.
In this paper, a general environmental impact
evaluation by fuzzy theory is proposed. This ap-
proach can be adopted with many models of
impact analysis. One of the simplest basic models
for the EIE is the matrix model (Caffrey and
David, 1975 Enea et al., 1994) whose input is the
subjective evaluation of both the qualities of the
environmental components and of the impact fac-
tors magnitude. To treat the fuzzy approach, it
was opportune to start from such a model be-
cause of its simplicity that leads to a better com-
parative valuation between the proposed and the
traditional model.
It is now opportune to make some remarks
about the nomenclature used in this paper. The
environmental components are the elements
struck by the impact factors typical of the plant
considered. Some examples of environmental
components can be air, water, use of the territory,
acoustic level and aesthetics.
The quality is a characteristic of the environ-
mental components. Each component has an ini-
tial quality before the project begins and this
quality can be estimated subjectively through an
opportune numerical value according to a specific
scale. This evaluation is often based on a relation
between a parameter (e.g. physical or chemical)
and the quality level.
The impact factors are those characteristics of
the plant that can influence the environmental
components. Common examples can be acoustic
issues, water pollution, ground occupation, trans-
port and production of solid waste. The impact
factor magnitude represents the environmental
damage intensity caused by the impact factor
considered. Such intensity can be expressed
through an opportune numerical value.
The assignment of these numbers (quality of
the environmental component and impact factor
magnitude) is the most subjective part of the
entire analysis and is determined on the basis of
an expert’s team judgment.
The matrix crisp EIE model begins with the
individualization of the environmental compo-
nents of the site and of the plant impact factors,
then proceeds with numerical estimate of the
quality and of the magnitude impacts.
In the matrix method Q is the matrix of the
environmental components quality, where the qij
element is equal to qi if the jth impact factor
strikes the ith environmental component, other-
wise zero if it does not strike; qi is the quality level
of the ith environmental component. G is the
vector of the magnitude impacts, where the ele-
ment gj represents how much the jth impact factor
strikes the environmental components. The
product matrix Q·G is the vector of the impacts
on the environmental components and the sum of
this element is the total environmental impact
(T.E.I.).
Usually the values of the elements of the matrix
Q and the vector G are estimated very precisely,
although the expert assessment is vague, since
 M. Enea, G. Salemi / Ecological Modelling 136 (2001) 131–147
vague is a judgment expressed in the natural
language.
Starting from such this observation, it is
thought that the application of fuzzy logic in the
EIE could bridge the gap between the perfection
of an exact mathematical model, in which all the
objects of the environment are characterized by
well-defined proprieties and the real world in
which all the properties are only approximately
true.
Therefore, in this paper the environmental
parameters are defined through fuzzy numbers
and suitable operators are proposed in order to
estimate both the T.E.I. in fuzzy terms, as well as
the percentage of impact on every environmental
component in a fuzzy form.
2. Environmental quality determination
The quality is an intrinsic parameter of the
considered environmental component; in order to
estimate this parameter, it can be considered that
the evaluation of the global quality of the compo-
nent is referable to the qualities of the primitive
components contained in the global component
(Vismara, 1995); through the combination of the
environmental quality of the primitive compo-
nents we can deduce the environmental quality of
the global environmental component.
So, the global environmental component (wa-
ter, air, ground, etc.) quality can be completely
defined through the evaluation and the composi-
tion of various qualities related to the primitive
environmental components. For example, an eval-
uation of the air (global environmental compo-
nent) quality cannot be obtained using a single
environmental parameter, but in order to repre-
sent the situation completely (Newman, 1989) it is
necessary to combine two or more quality
parameters of primitive environmental compo-
nents related to the amount of SO2, NOx, dusts,
etc.
In addition, the water quality can be defined by
the composition of parameters related to primitive
environmental components such as BOD, COD,
N, P, etc.
133
Consequently, it is necessary to define how to
compute an aggregated index derived from the
numerical quality of primitive components to as-
sess the quality of the global environmental
component.
In particular cases, the primitive components
can be only one and therefore, the global quality
of the component will be that one of the only
primitive. It is useful to explicit such a concept for
two environmental components: the flora and the
noise level. For the flora, the primitive environ-
mental components could be the different types of
species in the examined environment. The matter
is to establish a criterion that maps the quality of
the primitive environmental components to the
quality of the global component.
The other classical environmental component,
the noise level, is the classical example in which
the primitive environmental component is only
one and it coincides with global component.
It is now opportune to explain in detail some-
thing about fuzzy sets. Two distinct notations are
commonly employed in the literature to denote
membership functions. In one, the membership
function of a fuzzy set A is denoted by vA, that is:
vA :x“ [0, 1]. In the other one, the function is
denoted by A(x) and has, of course, the form:
A:x“[0, 1].
According to the first notation, the symbol of
the fuzzy set A is different from the symbol of its
membership function vA. According to the second
notation, this distinction is not made, but no
ambiguity results from this double use of the same
symbol. In this paper, we use the second notation,
that is, each fuzzy set and the associated member-
ship function are denoted by the same capital
letter.
Being h(A) the largest membership grade of a
fuzzy set A, this fuzzy set is called normal when
h(A)=1. Another important concept of fuzzy sets
is the h-cut and its variant, strong h-cut. Given a
fuzzy set A defined on X and any number h[0, 1],
the h-cut, hA and the strong h-cut, h + A are the
crisp sets:
h
A= {x A(x)] h}
h+
A= {x A(x)\ h}
134 M. Enea, G. Salemi / Ecological Modelling 136 (2001) 131–147
If a fuzzy set on R possesses all the following
properties:
“ to be a normal fuzzy set;
“ that hA is a closed interval for every h  (0, 1];
“ that the support of A, 0 + A is limited;
it can be considered a fuzzy number. Special case
of fuzzy numbers includes fuzzy intervals of real
numbers.
Let us consider a model with environmental
components N and M as factors of impact and let
us assume that the jth environmental component
has K primitive components. Since the quantifica-
tion of the environmental component quality is
surely a vague concept, it seems appropriate to
express such variables through a fuzzy set A:x “
[0, 1], where x points out a level of quality of the
environmental component that can be assumed to
vary between 1 and 10. The membership between
0 and 1 quantifies how much the primitive envi-
ronmental component is at the level of quality x
(Figs. 5–8 and 15). In such a way the quality of
the environmental component is qualified not by a
precise value, but from a set of values, each one of
them represents the quality of the component to a
certain degree of membership.
In the particular case, the fuzzy set that repre-
sents the quality level can be reasonably chosen in
such a way that it is a fuzzy number. For in-
stance, the triangular or trapezoid memberships
are fuzzy numbers that well lend in representing
linguistic concepts. With the use of fuzzy num-
bers, fuzzy arithmetic operations can be defined.
As mentioned before, to determine the global
component quality, we need to define a rule for
the composition of the primitive component qual-
ity. There are several numerical methods for the
primitive quality aggregation; this paper points
out some functions for the quality aggregation,
based on the typology of the environmental
component.
In the case that the primitive components qual-
ities are crisp, let q ipj be the quality of the ith
primitive component relative to the jth global
component. We can define a function q j =f({q pj})
where q j is the resulting jth global component
quality and {q pj}is a vector whose elements are
q ipj.
To define the operators to compose the quali-
ties of the primitive environmental components,
we note that usually the quality of the primitive
environmental components is a function of ob-
jects that add or subtract quality to the
environment.
For instance, usually some flora and fauna
species (increasing types) add quality to the envi-
ronment component, while gaseous or solid waste
(decreasing types) decreases it; we call the first
increasing type and the second, decreasing types
environmental components.
So we can define primitive environmental com-
ponents as increasing or decreasing, that must
follow different composition quality rules. To
simplify this concept, let us consider the case of
the presence in the same environment of two
different fauna species: one rare r and the other
common c; if a= q(r) and b= q(c) are, respec-
tively, the quality level of these primitive environ-
mental components then obviously a b; then it
is plausible in this case, in the calculation of the
global environmental component quality, to give
more importance to a rather than b.
In the case of two polluting gases, p1 and p2
characterizing the air quality component, with
quality levels a and b, if the presence of p2 is more
harmful than p1, then obviously ab; then it is
plausible in this case for the calculation of global
environmental component quality to give more
importance to b rather than a.
Based on this observation, to define a specific
class of operators for each typology of primitive
environmental component, we list below some
properties relative to the operators for the compo-
sition of increasing and decreasing primitive envi-
ronmental component qualities.
Let us suppose that the maximum value of the
quality environmental component has convention-
ally been fixed equal to 10. The properties for the
quality composition f(a, b) of the increasing type
components would be:
1. f(a, b)[0, 10]Öa, b[0, 10]
2. f(a, 0)= aÖa [0, 10] (boundary condition)
3. b 5c [ f(a, b)5 f(a, c)Öa, b, c [0, 10]
(monotonicity)
4. f(a, b)=f(b, a)Öa, b [0, 10] (commutativity)
5. f is a continuous function
 M. Enea, G. Salemi / Ecological Modelling 136 (2001) 131–147
6. f(a, a)\ aÖa (0, 10) (superidempotency) or
f(a, a)= aÖa [0, 10] (idempotency)moreover
another property is:
7. a B c,b Bd [ f(a, b)B f(c, d)Öa, b, c, d  [0, 10]
(strict monotonicity)
The (1) property is necessary because if a and b
are quality levels of primitive environmental com-
ponents, the value of the quality composition
function must be in the interval [0, 10], in fact the
quality level is defined by hypothesis in this inter-
val. The (2) property states that if the first primi-
tive environmental component quality is zero and
the second one is not, the second determines the
global quality; this appears reasonable for increas-
ing type environmental components because we
must give more importance to the major quality.
If one primitive environmental component quality
is zero, this cannot contribute to the quality, thus
the only contribution is given by the other one.
The (3) –(5) and (7) properties are trivial. The (6)
property (superidempotency or idempotency)
states that if we have two increasing type primi-
tive components with equal quality a, the global
quality is major or equal to this primitive environ-
mental component quality a. This is reasonable
for increasing primitive components because the
global quality must be at least equal to the major
quality component (idempotency), a in this case.
But we also can think that the other quality
component (also equal to a) can also increase the
global quality (superidempotency), because it is
an increasing type component.
The function:
f(a, b)=min[10,(a w +b w)1/w] w  (0, ) (1)
is a well-known class of functions (Yager, 1980)
as w varies, that has the properties (1 – 6) in terms
of superidempotency if w does not tend to ; very bad for the presence of pollution, it appears
moreover, it satisfies the associative property and
is strictly monotonous. The function Eq. (1) in-
creases when w decreases.
For w“ is:
f(a, b)=max(a, b)
When w“ 0 we obtain the function fmax(a, b):
fmax(a, b)=a when b =0
fmax(a, b)=b when a =0
135
fmax(a, b)= 10 otherwise
The function fmax(a, b) is the maximum of Eq.
(1), while max(a, b) is the minimum,
consequently:
max(a, b)5 f(a, b)5 fmax(a, b)
The max(a, b) function has the properties (1–6)
in terms of idempotent and (7). Such relationship,
in the specific case, will express the concept that
the quality of the global environmental compo-
nents is the maximum of the incremental environ-
mental primitive components that can sometimes
be considered as a sufficiently acceptable
hypothesis.
The properties, for the quality composition of
the decreasing type components, would be:
1. f(a, b)[0, 10]Öa, b [0, 10]
2. f(a, 0)= 0Öa [0, 10] (boundary condition)
3. b5c [ f(a, b)5 f(a, c)Öa, b, c [0, 10]
(monotonicity)
4. f(a, b)=f(b, a)Öa, b[0, 10] (commutativity)
5. f is a continuous function
6. f(a, a)B aÖa (0, 10) (subidempotency) or
f(a, a)= aÖa (0, 10) (idempotency)moreover
another property is:
7. aB c,b Bd [ f(a, b)Bf(c, d)Öa, b, c, d[0, 10]
(strict monotonicity)
The only different properties that are not com-
mon to both increasing and decreasing type envi-
ronmental components are (2) and (6). The
boundary condition Eq. (2) is necessary in the
composition of the decreasing type components
quality, because the decreasing type component
with less quality must have more importance than
the component with more quality. If the first
quality is zero, for example when the air quality is
reasonable that the global quality cannot be \0.
The (6) property (subidempotency or idempo-
tency) states that if we have two decreasing type
primitive components with equal quality a, the
global quality is less or equal to this primitive
environmental component quality a. This is rea-
sonable for decreasing primitive type components,
because the global quality must be not greater
than the minimum quality component (idempo-
tency), a in this case. But we can think that the
136 M. Enea, G. Salemi / Ecological Modelling 136 (2001) 131–147

other quality component (also equal to a) can This function satisfies the following conditions:
also decrease the global quality (subidempotency) 1. f(a1, a2, a3,.....,an )[0, 10] Ö a1, a2, a3,....,an
because it is a decreasing type component.
 [0, 10]
The function:
2. f(0, 0, 0,.....,0)=0; f(1, 1, 1,.....,1)= 1
f(a, b)=10 −min[10,((10 −a)w +(10 − b)w)1/w] (boundary condition)
3. f(a1, a2, a3,...,an )5 f(b1, b2, b3,..., bn ) if ai
w (0, ) (2)
5 bi Öi 05 i5 n
is a well-known class of functions (Yager, 1980)
(monotonic increasing in all its arguments)
as w varies, that has the properties (1 – 6) in terms
4. f(a1, a2, a3, . . . , an ) (is a continuous function)
of subidempotency, when w does not tend to ;
5. f(a1, a2, a3, . . . , an ) (is a symmetric function in
moreover it satisfies the associative property and
all its arguments)
is strictly monotonous. The function Eq. (2) in-
6. f(a1, a2, a3, . . . , an ) is an idemponent function
creases when w is rising.
that is f(a, a, a, . . . , a)=a
For w“ is:
The lower and the upper bound of this operator
f(a, b)= min(a, b) (2%) are min(ai ) and max(ai ) that are obtained for
h“ − and h“ .
When w“0 we obtain the function fmin(a, b):
Another possible class of aggregation that cov-
fmin(a, b)= a when b =10 ers the entire range between the min(ai ) and the
max(ai ) operator is the ordered weighted averag-
fmin(a, b)= b when a =10
ing operations (OWA):
fmin(a, b)= 0 otherwise
f(a1, a2, a3, . . . , an )= % pi bi (4)
The function fmin(a, b) is the lower-bound of i
Eq. (1), while min(a, b) is the upper-bound with where bi for any i {1, 2, 3. . . n} is the ith largest
w, consequently: in a1, a2, . . . , an. That is the vector
Žb1, b2, b3, . . . , bn  is a permutation of the vector
fmin(a, b)5 f(a, b)5min(a, b)
Ža1, a2, a3, . . . , an  in which the elements are or-
The min(a, b) function has the properties (1 – 6) dered: bi ] bj if iB j for any pair
in terms of indemponent and (7). Such relation- i, j {1, 2, 3, . . . , n}. The vector Žp1, p2, p3, . . . , pn 
ship in the specific case will express the concept is a weighting vector such that pi [0, 1] for all
that the quality of the global environmental com- i {1, 2, 3, . . . , n} and:
ponents is the minimum of the decreasing types
environmental primitive components, which %pi = 1 (5)
i
sometimes can be sufficiently considered as an
The lower and the upper bound of this operator
acceptable hypothesis.
are min(ai ) and max(ai ) that are obtained for the
In order to complete the set of numerical values
weighting vectors:
for f(a, b), it is necessary to consider when it is
opportune that f(a, b) has a numerical value be- p  = Ž0, 0, 0, . . . , 1 and
tween min(a, b) and max(a, b); i.e. the resulting p  = Ž1, 0, 0, . . . , 0
quality is a middle value between the quality of
Silvert (1997) proposed other classes of aggre-
primitive components. In this case, we can use
gation such as ‘the compensatory and function’
also the class of generalized means that covers the
by Zimmermann and Zysno (1991), as well as the

: ;
entire range between min and max operations.
‘symmetric sum’ by the same Silvert.
These are defined by the formula:
1/h
Now it is opportune to say something about the
%a hi extension principle (Zadeh, 1965). The member-
f(ai ) =
i ship rule that characterizes the elements of a
(3)
n general crisp set A¦U (universal set) can be
 M. Enea, G. Salemi / Ecological Modelling 136 (2001) 131–147 137

established by the concept of the characteristic the extension principle or the a-cut
function A(x) taking only two values, 1 and 0, representation:
indicating whether or not x  U is a member of A.
[ f(A, B)](z)= sup min(A(a), B(b))
Let us consider the following function of two real Ö(a,b) z = max(a,b)
(11)
numbers x and y:
h
( f(A, B))= {max(a, b) a, b(hA× hB)} (12)
z = f(x, y) (6)
Such an operation can be indicated syntheti-
If the real numbers x and y are extended to
cally as max(A, B)(z) not to be confused with the
crisp intervals A and B, respectively, then, the
standard fuzzy t-conorm max(A(x), B(x)).
usual function can map the crisp intervals A and
If we select f(a, b)=min(a, b) (decreasing type
B into the interval Z as follows:
environmental component) we obtain, employing
Z = {z z=f(x, y), x  A, y  B)} (7) the extension principle or the h-cut
representation:
Using the previous expression, the interval
function being the extension of Eq. (6) is denoted [ f(A, B)](z)= sup min(A(a), B(b)) (13)
Ö(a,b) z = min(a,b)
as h
( f(A, B))= {min(a, b) a, b( A× B)} h h
(14)
Z = f(A, B)
Such an operation can be indicated syntheti-
The characteristic function of the crisp set Z cally as min(A, B)(z) not to be confused with the
can be described as: standard fuzzy t-norm max(A(x), B(x)).
The f(A, B)(z) is a continuous fuzzy number
Z(z) = sup min[A(x), B(y)] (8)
{Öx,y z = f(x,y)} because the f(a, b) is continuous and
Eq. (8) is equivalent to Eq. (7), it represents the monotonous. For the class of Eq. (1) and Eq. (2)
basic concept of the extension principle, so when through the repeated application of the function
A(x) and B(y) are the membership of the fuzzy [ f(A, B)](z) we can calculate
j j j j
sets A and B (considered here as special cases of f(q 1p , q 2p , q 3p , . . . , q kp ) which can be indicated
characteristic function) Eq. (8) expresses a form of with q j:q“ [0, 1].
the extension principle. The extension principle is As stated before, the quality that is a character-
a principle for fuzzifying crisp functions: employ- istic of the environmental component is some-
ing this principle, standard arithmetic operations times a function of physical or chemical
on real numbers are extended to fuzzy numbers. parameters.
Since the values of the qualities of the primitive In order to define the quality of environmental
components are fuzzy numbers, it is necessary to components, it is worth considering the case in
apply the operators above defined Eqs. (1) – (4) which the quality is expressed as function of a
through the extension principle. For the increas- certain physical parameter f (Newman, 1989 Vis-
ing or decreasing types if A:a “ [0, 1] and B:b “ mara, 1995), that is a correspondence existing
[0, 1] are two fuzzy numbers, applying the between the value, which some physical quantity
operator f(a, b) we get: assumes in the site and the quality of the consid-
ered environmental component. Thus, we can
[ f(A, B)](z)= sup min(A(a), B(b)) (9)
Ö(a,b) z = f(a,b) define a function q( f ) that maps the values of the
This expression can also be written employing physical quantity to the quality of the component.
the h-cut representation, in terms of arithmetic For some cases, it is opportune to pass to a
operations on closed intervals of real numbers normalized scale by applying the following
(Klir, 1992): formula:
f(A, B)= { f(a, b) a, b  hA × hB}
h
(10) fnorm = ( f− fmin)/( fmax − fmin)
If we select f(a, b) = max(a, b) (increasing type where f is the measure of initial conditions ac-
environmental component) we obtain, employing cording to the original scale; fnorm, the measure of
138 M. Enea, G. Salemi / Ecological Modelling 136 (2001) 131–147
the initial conditions according to the normal-
ized scale; and fmin and fmax are the lower and
upper bound of the interval in which the quality
component is different from zero.
It is necessary then to choose and this is the
most delicate phase of the crisp model, the func-
tion q=f( f ) that best describes the environ-
mental quality.
An example could be the case when, for the
water quality, the pH is the measure of a primi-
tive environmental component quality. In this
case if to a pH value between fmin and fmax is
associated a quality higher than zero and zero
outside (obviously in absolutely pH is between 0
an 14), a function that can represent the envi-
ronmental quality is:
q= 1 −4( fnorm − 0, 5)2
q=0
if 0 5fnorm 51
otherwise
If the value to be assigned to the physical
quantity is not of the crisp type, but is instead
fuzzy, it is necessary to replace f in q( f ) with
the fuzzy value F:f“ [0, 1] of the physical quan-
tity and to use the operator:
Q(q) = sup F( f )
Öf q = q( f )
Of course the function q( f ) can also be a
fuzzy function; this case is similar to the case
for the calculation of impact factor magnitude
expounded in the next section.
3. Impact factor magnitude determination
In the crisp model, a certain value of magni-
tude is assigned to every impact factor, generally
through the individualization of the physical
measure of the impact factor on a scale of im-
pact (Enea et al., 1994 Vismara, 1995).
For instance, the elementary impact ‘ground
occupation’ can be represented by the diagram
as in Fig. 16; being the surface occupied by the
plant the input, it is possible to obtain the ‘m’
magnitude of the action.
In such a case the uncertain elements can be
either the form of the diagram relating the im-
pact magnitude with the physical parameter, or
the quantification of the surface occupied by the
plant, since this quantification is often uncertain
during the feasibility study of the project. Thus,
besides the situation in which all the variables
and functions are crisp, the following cases can
be found:
a. fuzzy diagram, crisp occupied surface;
b. crisp diagram, fuzzy occupied surface;
c. diagram and occupied surface, both fuzzy.
In the crisp model, if s indicates the surface
occupied by the plant, there is a function m=
g(s) that returns the ‘m’ magnitude of the ac-
tion for a value of the occupied surface s.
Referring to case (a), this function m=g(s) can
depend upon a fuzzy parameter B:r“ [0, 1], as
in the following equation:
m=10
s B
if s5 Sm
Sm (16)
m= 10 if s\ Sm
For each s, m is a fuzzy number, that apply-
ing the extension principle, is defined by:
[g(s, B)](m)= sup B(r) (16%)
Ör m = g(s,r)
(15) In the case (b) S:s“ [0, 1] indicates a fuzzy
number that expresses the surface occupied by
the plant, if m=g(s) is the function relating the
impact magnitude with the physical parameter,
also in this case, the magnitude will be a fuzzy
number that when applying the extension princi-
ple, is expressed by:
[g(S)](m)= sup S(s) (17)
Ös m = g(s)
Finally in the case (c) the most complex, the
magnitude will be a fuzzy number function of
two fuzzy numbers S and B. Applying the ex-
tension principle we have:
[g(S, B)](m)= sup min(B(r), S(s)) (18)
Ö(r,s) m = g(r,s)
Sometimes the magnitude of an impact factor
is function, as before for environmental quality,
of several impact parameters, therefore also
in this case the composition rules (1–4) are
applicable to determine the impact factor magni-
tude.
 M. Enea, G. Salemi / Ecological Modelling 136 (2001) 131–147 139

4. Determination of the T.E.I. 5. How to compare the T.E.I. for different

sceneries
Once defined the above elements, the element qij
(i = 1, . . . , N, j= 1, . . . , M) of the matrix Q Ranking rules can be applied to these fuzzy
(quality of the environmental components) will be numbers in order to estimate relative importance
a fuzzy number if the environmental component i of the impacts on the environmental components;
is influenced by the impact factor j, otherwise it the same ranking rules can be applied to T.E.I. in
will be zero if the environmental component i is order to compare impacts for different sceneries.
not influenced by the impact factor j. Fuzzy num- We could use a process of defuzzification, but
bers also constitute the vector G of the impact we would lose some information and we would
factor magnitudes. have an artificial precision. However when de-
Therefore, the product lines per columns Q·G, fuzzification is necessary, as sometime in manage-
can be obtained to get the I vector of the impacts; ment decision-making, it is opportune not to lose
dealing with arithmetic operations on fuzzy num- information on the fuzzy number distribution.
bers, the ii element of I will be expressed by: Presented in this paper is a criterion to rank the
fuzzy numbers representing the T.E.I. that consid-
ii (yi ) ers both the grade of pessimism of the decision
maker and the acceptable risk level.
= sup M min[ci1(z1), ci2(z2), ci3(z3) Let A and B be two fuzzy T.E.I. defined for
Ö(z 1,z 2,z 3,...,zM) yi = % zk
k=1
x N. We will define A] B (strong relation) when
, . . . ,ciM (zM )] (19) for each h-cut the following two relations are
both satisfied:
with: inf I(A, h)] inf I(B, h) and
sup I(A, h)]sup I(B, h) (23)
ci, j (zj )= sup min[(qi, j (xi ), gj (mj )] (20)
Ö(xi,mj) z = xi·mj
where I(A, h) is the h-level set of A.
The T.E.I. is expressed by: When this relation is not satisfied, i.e.
max(A, B)" A and max(A, B)" B a weak rank-
TEI(t) ing relation must be established to determine
whether A is weakly bigger or equal to B or vice
= sup N min[i1(y1), i2(y2), i3(y3) versa.
Ö(y 1,y 2,y 3,...,yN) t = % yk The comparison of two fuzzy numbers can be
k=1

, . . . , iN (yN )] (21) based on the comparison of the areas determined

by their membership functions according to the
Now it remains to establish how much the following integrals (Nakamura 1986 Roubens,

&
impact ii (yi ) on the environmental component i th 1990):
is contained in the T.E.I. this relationship is fuzzy.
By applying the extension principle we have SL(A]B)= [inf I(A, h)− inf I(B, h)] dh
U(A,B)
Ri :ri “[0, 1], which represents in fuzzy form how
&
(24)
much the impact on the component i th is con-
tained in the global impact: SR(A]B)= [sup I(A, h)− sup I(B, h)] dh
S(A,B)
(25)
Ri (ri )
U(A, B)= {h 05h5 1, inf I(A, h)]inf I (B, h)}
= sup min[i1(y1), i2(y2), i3(y3)
S(A, B)={h 05h5 1, sup I(A, h)] sup I (B, h)}
N
Ö(y 1,y 2,y 3,...,yN) ri = yi/ % yk
k=1

, . . . , iN (yN )] (22) (26)

140 M. Enea, G. Salemi / Ecological Modelling 136 (2001) 131–147
Those areas are given in Fig. 1.
The degree to which A ] B is defined by the
following relation:
C(A ]B)= max{[SL(A ] B) +SR(A ] B)]
−[(SL(B] A)+SR(B ]A)],0} (27)
Fortemps (1996) defines the crisp relations be-
tween every pair (A,B):
1. A ]B iff C(B] A) =0
2. A\ B iff C(A]B) \ 0 (which implies C(B ]
A)=0)
3. A $B iff C(A] B) = C(B ]A) =0
The crisp preference ] structure is a complete,
reflexive and transitive relation, which implies
that \ and $ are transitive. The transitivity of
this relation makes this ranking criterion suitable
in order to compare the T.E.I. for many types of
scenery.
In the third case, if A and B are fuzzy T.E.I.
corresponding to two different sceneries the solu-
tions are considered equivalent, that means they
belong to the same grade of preference.
The relation can also be modified to take into
account the grade of prudence of the decision
maker, by introducing a grade of prudence
i[0, 1], as in the crisp Hurwitz method used to
compare economic alternatives. The condition
i= 0.5 will obviously identify the neutral deci-
sion-maker. Considering this prudence coefficient,
the relation (27) can be modified as follows:
C(A ] B)=
max{[(1−i)SL(A]B) +iSR(A ] B)]
− [(1 −i)SL(B]A)+ iSR(B ] A)],0} (27%)
In order to consider the acceptable risk level,
sets Eq. (26) can be calculated as:
Fig. 1. Ranking of fuzzy numbers.
U(A,B)= {h h 5 h5 1, inf I(A, h)] inf I(B, h)}
S(A, B)={h h5 h5 1, supI(A, h)] sup I(B, h)}
(28)
With reference to fuzzy-set interpretation of
possibility theory (Zadeh, 1978 Klir, 1992), h can
&
be seen as an accepted grade of risk, because if dh
is the hbasic probability of nesting set hA then:
h = dh
0
is the upper bound probability of the set: SA =
{x 0B A(x)5 h}.
The Eq. (27%) with Eq. (28) definition for
U(A, B) and S(A, B), can be used to compare the
T.E.I. for different plant typologies and different
locations, taking into account the decision mak-
er’s grade of pessimism and of accepted risk.
6. Example
In the following an application of the proposed
fuzzy approach is presented; such an example is
developed first in crisp with the purpose of under-
lining the differences between the two models.
The example concerns the T.E.I. for the work-
ing phase of an incinerator, in order not to weight
down the numerical part, we refer to five environ-
mental components and four factors of impact
only, this is because the example is finalized to
better clarify the methodology and not to ap-
praise the case in matter. The values assigned to
the environmental component qualities and to the
impact factor magnitudes are merely indicative.
Using the classical crisp method (Fig. 2) the
matrix of assignment Q (5× 4) has five environ-
mental components and four impact factors.
 M. Enea, G. Salemi / Ecological Modelling 136 (2001) 131–147 141

Fig. 2. Classical crisp T.E.I..

The five environmental components are: through knowledge engineering techniques that
“ site noise; supply the estimates in order to value the T.E.I. in
“ road network; a more objective way. In this paper, such tech-
“ site aesthetics; niques are not studied, therefore the formalities to
“ site wholesomeness; quantify environmental parameters are put aside.
“ air quality. In the following figures, the membership of the
The four impact factors are: fuzzy number of the generic variable x is indicated
“ ground occupation; with v, for ease of representation; qi is the ith
“ noise emission; environmental component quality; mi is the ith
“ transport of solid waste and material; magnitude impact factor.
“ gaseous discharge.
Furthermore a vector G (4 × 1) is the vector of
the impacts magnitudes. As mentioned before the
values assigned to the elements of the matrix Q
and to the vector G, are merely indicative. From
the matrix product Q·G, we obtain the vector I
(5 × 1) of the partial impacts on the single envi-
ronmental components. The sum of the elements
of the vector I will supply the T.E.I.. The single
elements of the vector I divided by T.E.I. are the
Fig. 3. Site quality versus acoustic level (dB).
percentage incidence of the impact on the single
environmental components; these percentages are
indicated in Fig. 2.
In fuzzy procedure the elements of the matrix Q
are the global components quality in fuzzy form,
whose primitive are calculable through Eq. (15) if
a quality physical measure exists or through an
expert direct evaluation when there is not a phys-
ical parameter, associated to the considered envi-
ronmental component quality. In the second case,
a good evaluation of such a fuzzy set is possible Fig. 4. Fuzzy acoustic level of the site (dB).
142 M. Enea, G. Salemi / Ecological Modelling 136 (2001) 131–147
Fig. 5. Fuzzy acoustic level quality of the site.
Fig. 6. Fuzzy road network quality of the site.
Fig. 7. Fuzzy aesthetics quality of the site.
Fig. 8. Fuzzy wholesomeness quality of the site.
6.1. Analysis of the en6ironmental components
6.1.1. Site noise
Fig. 3 shows the hypothesized correlation be-
tween the physical quantity noise level al ex-
pressed in dB and the environmental component
quality indicated as q1; in Fig. 4 the fuzzy number
represents the physical acoustic level al in the site.
In Fig. 5 the quality fuzzy for the considered
environmental component is derived by the appli-
cation of the operator Eq. (15).
6.1.2. Road network
In Fig. 6, the fuzzy set represents the quality of
the environmental component: road practicability
of the site, indicated by q2. It can be obtained on
the basis of the typological characteristic of the
roads that are related to the quality of the road
network.
6.1.3. Site aesthetics
In Fig. 7 the fuzzy set represents the quality of
the aesthetics environmental component q3. This
curve, as that for the wholesomeness is very sub-
jective and can be obtained through expert’s as-
sessment. A methodology to define these curves
using expert’s assessments is the Fuzzy Delphi
method that is a typical multi-experts procedure
for combining views and opinions. The Fuzzy
Delphi method was introduced in management
science by Kaufmann and Gupta (1988) as a
generalization of the classical Delphi method.
6.1.4. Site wholesomeness
In Fig. 8, the fuzzy set represents the quality of
the environmental wholesomeness component in
the site q4.
Fig. 9. Air quality versus NO2 concentration (mg/m3).
 M. Enea, G. Salemi / Ecological Modelling 136 (2001) 131–147
Fig. 10. Air quality versus SO2 concentration (mg/m3).
Fig. 11. Fuzzy NO2 concentration (mg/m3).
Fig. 12. Fuzzy SO2 concentration (mg/m3).
Fig. 13. Fuzzy air quality for NO2.
143
6.1.5. Air quality
In order to exemplify the application of fuzzy
combination rules, in particular the Eq. (2%), the
air environmental component quality is divided in
two primitive environmental components, the first
function of the NO2 level and the second of the
SO2 level. For this case, in Figs. 9 and 10, the
relation between the measures of the physical
quantity and the environmental quality are re-
ported; in Figs. 11 and 12 the fuzzy sets represent
the measures of the physical quantity in the site
(concentration of NO2 and SO2). In Figs. 13 and
14 the fuzzy sets obtained by the application of
the operator derived Eq. (15), that represent the
air quality through the primitive components NO2
and SO2.
The determination of the curve given in Fig. 13
is rather simple. By means of the extension princi-
ple we can vary the q(NO2) given in Fig. 9 from
0 to 10 and for every value we determine the
corresponding values (or the value) of the NO2
concentration, then using the curve given in Fig.
11 for these concentrations we obtain the corre-
sponding membership. The maximum of such
membership (in most cases only one value is
obtained) is the membership of q(NO2).
For example, as Fig. 9 shows for q51 = 2 (the
first subscript refers to the global environmental
component and the second refers to the primitive
environmental component) the concentration of
NO2 is :170 mg/m3, the corresponding member-
ship given in Fig. 11 is zero. Therefore the value
q=2 is not a member of the ‘fuzzy set air quality
for NO2’. Conversely, as Fig. 9 shows to the value
q51 = 8 corresponds a NO2 concentration of :60
Fig. 14. Fuzzy air quality for SO2.
144 M. Enea, G. Salemi / Ecological Modelling 136 (2001) 131–147
Fig. 15. Fuzzy global air quality.
Fig. 16. Impact versus ground occupancy S.
Fig. 17. Fuzzy plant surface (m2).
Fig. 18. Fuzzy impact for ground occupancy plant.
mg/m3 and to this concentration a membership of
: 0.82 as shown in Fig. 11. Therefore, a 0.82
membership corresponds to quality q51 = 8 for the
presence of NO2.
The composition of the two primitive qualities
can be generally calculated through Eqs. (1) –(4).
In order to describe explicitly how to compose the
two fuzzy primitive qualities of Figs. 13 and 14, in
terms of arithmetic operations on closed intervals
of real numbers, we consider for every h-cut in
Figs. 13 and 14 the intervals, so because the
environmental components are of decreasing type,
we apply Eq. (14). In particular, the h-cut of the
resulting composition has as lower bound (inf) the
minimum of each h-cut lower bound of the fuzzy
numbers in Figs. 13 and 14. Similarly the upper
bound is the minimum of each h-cut upper
bound. The result is given in Fig. 15.
6.2. Analysis of the impact factors
6.2.1. Ground occupation
Fig. 16 shows the correlation hypothesized be-
tween the measure of the physical quantity impact
‘s’ (occupied surface) and its magnitude impact
factor m1. In Fig. 17, the fuzzy set represents the
measure of the physical quantity of the impact
factor; this measure is uncertain in the project
feasibility analysis phase and for this reason the
parameter may be considered fuzzy.
Fig. 18 represents the fuzzy set derived by the
application of the operator Eq. (17) and it ex-
presses the magnitude of the analyzed impact
factor m1.
6.2.2. Noise emission
Fig. 19 shows the correlation hypothesized be-
tween the measure of the physical measure of the
Fig. 19. Impact versus acoustic emission (dB).
 M. Enea, G. Salemi / Ecological Modelling 136 (2001) 131–147 145

impact factor ‘a’ (acoustic emission) and its mag-

nitude m2; in Fig. 20 the fuzzy set represents the
physical measure of the impact factor in the pro-
ject phase; Fig. 21 represents the fuzzy set, derived
by the application of the operator Eq. (17) and it
expresses the magnitude of the considered impact
factor m2.

6.2.3. The transport of solid waste and material

In Fig. 22 the fuzzy set represents the magni-
Fig. 20. Fuzzy plant acoustic emission (dB). tude of the considered impact factor for the trans-
port of solid waste and material, based on the
procedure followed in the previous cases.

6.2.4. Gaseous discharge

In this case Eq. (13) or Eq. (14) is applied to the
primitive impacts for the gaseous discharge; for
simplicity the fuzzy set in Fig. 23 represents the
impact factor magnitude calculated with the pro-
cedure followed in the previous cases.

6.3. Impact e6aluation

Fig. 21. Fuzzy impact for plant acoustic emission.
Fig. 24 shows the fuzzy set that represents the
T.E.I., calculated through Eqs. (19) –(21).
The h-cut interval for h= 1 of this curve is
202 –224, that as expected contains the crisp value
209. The additional information compared to the
crisp case is that we know all the possible values
that T.E.I. can assume and their relative member-
ship. Moreover, if we compare the impact for
several sceneries by means of Eq. (27), then not
only the T.E.I. values with membership = 1, but
also those with membership B 1 would be
Fig. 22. Fuzzy impact for solid waste transport.
considered.

Fig. 23. Fuzzy impact for gaseous discharge.

Fig. 24. T.E.I.
146 M. Enea, G. Salemi / Ecological Modelling 136 (2001) 131–147
Fig. 25. Comparison between scenery A and B impacts.
Fig. 26. Fuzzy impact on the ith component. (1) Impact on
acoustic level quality. (2) Impact on road practicability qual-
ity. (3) Impact on aesthetics quality. (4) Impact on the air
quality. (5) Impact on wholesomeness quality.
Fig. 27. Fuzzy impact on the ith component. (1) Impact on
acoustic level quality. (2) Impact on road practicability qual-
ity. (3) Impact on aesthetics quality. (4) Impact on the air
quality. (5) Impact on wholesomeness quality.
In Fig. 25 is represented the comparison be-
tween the fuzzy T.E.I. determined before (scenery
A) and the one relative to a different scenery B.
Through Eq. (27) for i= 0.5 we obtain that in
the first scenery there is a total impact stronger
than in the second scenery, although for i= 1
and h= 0.1 in the second scenery B there is a
stronger impact than in the first one; a proper
value for a and h is chosen according to the
decision-maker’s prudence grade and accepted
risk. In the last case, the crisp values of the T.E.I.,
since i= 1 whole did not influence the decision.
The fuzzy set in Figs. 26 and 27 represent how
much of T.E.I. affects the ith environmental
component.
7. Conclusions
In this paper, a fuzzy approach to EIE matrix
model that can be extended to other EIE models,
has been proposed. This approach gives a possi-
bility interpretation (Yager, 1984 Zadeh and
Kacprzyk, 1992 Klir, 1992) of the global impact
(Fig. 24) and of impact incidence on each environ-
mental component (Figs. 26 and 27). So for every
h-cut level, a risk grade can be considered for
which an interval of impacts is possible. The
width of the interval derives both from impreci-
sion of the input data (environmental component
quality, impact physical parameters) and from
uncertainty of the relations (between physical
parameters and environmental component quality
and between physical parameters and impact fac-
tors). Contrarily crisp approaches give artificially
undoubted EIE estimate, consequently they do
not consider, when comparing the impact of sev-
eral projects, the effect of the impact valuation
imprecision. This fact sometimes causes the com-
parisons based on crisp models to be not very
reliable. We believe that it is better for the deci-
sion-maker to be aware of the uncertainty rather
than believe that the real word is artificially pre-
cise. Moreover, as stated before, it is possible to
manage the uncertainty also by considering an
acceptable level of prudence and of risk. It is
mainly in the comparison of different sceneries
that the difference between fuzzy and crisp ap-
 M. Enea, G. Salemi / Ecological Modelling 136 (2001) 131–147
proach is pointed out. Fuzzy approach in fact
allows the decision maker to have a broader and
more realistic perception of the possible plant
environmental impact; simultaneously although
allowing a better discretion in the choice among
several alternatives, this approach highlights the
accepted risk levels and the caution towards the
worst possible impacts.
The proposed approach, taking into account
that both the evaluation of the environmental
component quality and the impact factor magni-
tude are imprecise, gives through suitable opera-
tors the real variability of the total plant impact
on the environment assigning a membership value
to every possible impact. This is more coherent
with the real world than the crisp method because
the plant impact on the environment is subjective
and imprecise as subjective and imprecise is a
fuzzy set. Moreover by means of this approach, it
is possible to express either qualitative or quanti-
tative environmental factors.
In this paper we have not proposed defuzzifica-
tion rules because, in this case, it brings again to
crisp logic estimate, losing precious information
about possible impacts. On the other hand, we
have compared the T.E.I. for different sceneries,
by suggesting an approach that takes into account
the grade of prudence of the decision-maker and a
level of acceptable risk.
Other researches could be made in order to
estimate either the sort of function Eqs. (1) – (4),
as well as w, h, p parameters; this estimate can be
made by the expert’s opinions and through
knowledge engineering techniques that are an ob-
ject of fuzzy theory research.
References
Caffrey, P., David, M., 1975. Evaluation of environmental
impact of landfills. J. Eng. Div. 2, 55–69.
Enea, M., Nicosia, S., Salemi, G., 1994. Rifiuti solidi urbani:
un confronto fra diversi sistemi di smaltimento preliminare
147
alla valutazione del loro impatto sull’ambiente. Ing. Sani-
tar.-Amb. 4, 35 – 45.
Foody, G.M., 1996. Fuzzy modelling of vegetation from re-
motely sensed imagery. Ecol. Model. 85, 3 – 12.
Friederichs, M., Fränzle, O., Salki, 1996. Fuzzy clustering of
existing chemical according to their ecotossicological prop-
erties. Ecol. Model. 85, 27 – 40.
Hobbs, B.F., StaKhiv, E.Z., Grayman, W.M., 1989. Impact
evaluation procedures: theory, practice and needs. ASCE
WR 115, 2 – 21.
Kaufmann, A., Gupta, M.M., 1988. Fuzzy Mathematical
Models in Engineering and Management Science. North-
Holland, Amsterdam.
Klir, G.J., 1992. Probabilistic versus possibilistic conceptual-
ization of uncertainty, in: AYY BM.
Klir, G.J., Yuan, B., 1995. Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic —
Theory and Application. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle
River.
Lhen, K., Temme, K.H., 1996. Fuzzy classification of sites
suspected of being contaminated. Ecol. Model. 85, 51 – 58.
Melcher, D., Matthies, M., 1996. Application of fuzzy cluster-
ing to data dealing with phytotoxicity. Ecol. Model. 85,
41 – 50.
Metternicht, G.I., 1998. Fuzzy classification of JERS-1 SAR
data: an evaluation of its performance for soil salinity
mapping. Ecol. Model. 111, 61 – 74.
Nakamura, K., 1986. Preference relation on a set of fuzzy
utilities. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 20, 147– 162.
Newman, P.J., 1989. Classification of Surface Water Quality.
Heineman Professional, New York.
Roubens, M., 1990. Inequality constraints between fuzzy num-
bers and their use in mathematical programming. In:
Slowinsky, R., Teghem, J. (Eds.), Stochastic Versus Fuzzy
Approaches to Multiobjective Mathematical Programming
under Uncertainty. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 321– 330.
Salski, A., 1992. Fuzzy knowledge-based models in ecological
research. Ecol. Model. 63, 103– 112.
Silvert, W., 1997. Ecological impact classification with fuzzy
sets. Ecol. Model. 96, 1 – 10.
Vismara, R., 1995. Ecologia Applicata. Hoepli, Milan.
Yager, R.R., 1980. On a general class of fuzzy connectives.
Fuzzy Sets Sys. 4 (3), 235– 242.
Yager, R.R., 1984. Probabilities from fuzzy observation. In-
form. Sci. 32 (1), 103– 110.
Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Inform. Cont. 8, 338– 353.
Zadeh, L.A., 1978. Fuzzy set as a basis for a theory of
possibility. Fuzzy Sets Sys. 1 (1), 3 – 28.
Zadeh, L.A., Kacprzyk, J., 1992. Fuzzy Logic for the Manage-
ment of Uncertainty. Wiley, New York.
Zimmermann, H.J., Zysno, P., 1991. Fuzzy Set Theory and Its
Application, second ed. Kluver Academic, Boston.