Eurasian Journal of Biosciences

Environmental impact assessment in coal-burning power plants based on AHP and entropy weight VIKOR method
  • Article Type: Research Article
  • Eurasian Journal of Biosciences, 2020 - Volume 14 Issue 2, pp. 2855-2865
  • Published Online: 07 Sep 2020
  • Open Access Full Text (PDF)


In the case of increasing power demand and increasingly serious environmental pollution, the study on environmental impact of coal-fired power plants on coal-fired power generation projects with coal as the main raw material has certain theoretical significance and practical value. Based on the comprehensive impact of coal-fired power plants on the environment, this paper studies the environmental impact assessment index system and assessment methods of coal-fired power plants in Taiwan. Firstly, the paper analyzes the environmental impact of coal-fired power plants. Then the comprehensive evaluation index system, the selection of evaluation factors, the quantification of evaluation indexes and the evaluation model of the environmental impact of coal-fired power plants are emphatically studied. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was applied to determine the weight of each index, and then a comprehensive evaluation model was established using VIKOR method. The whole index system was firstly evaluated from three aspects, namely nature, ecology and economic society, and then the overall comprehensive evaluation was carried out. Finally, the index system and model are applied to the actual evaluation of power plants, and the feasibility of the model is illustrated with an example, so as to provide a method reference for the environmental impact evaluation of power plants.


  • Boyle, J. (1998). Basic elements of an effective EIA plan. Environmental Impact Review, 18(2), 97-102.
  • Braaf, R. R. (1999). Improving impact assessment methods: climate change and the health of indigenous Australians. Global Environmental Change, 9(2), 95-104.
  • Coursey, D., & Kim, S. (1997). An examination of compensation mechanisms to solve the NIMBY problem (No. 9705).
  • EIA Centre. A pilot study on post-project analysis in Flanders. Manchester: School of Planning and Landscape. University of Manchester, 1996:41-44.
  • Groothuis, P. A., Groothuis, J. D., & Whitehead, J. C. (2008). Green vs. green: Measuring the compensation required to site electrical generation windmills in a viewshed. Energy Policy, 36(4), 1545-1550.
  • Hai, W., Xinqiong, W., Heng, Y., & Liu, C. (2014). Preliminary Investigation on Tracking Evaluation of Planning Environmental Impact Assessment in Ecological Civilization Construction of Wuhan City. Meteorological & Environmental Research, 5(2), 35-40.
  • Havens, J., & Spicer, T. (2007). United States regulations for siting LNG terminals: problems and potential. Journal of hazardous materials, 140(3), 439-443.
  • Homagain, K., Shahi, C., Luckai, N., & Sharma, M. (2015). Life cycle environmental impact assessment of biochar-based bioenergy production and utilization in Northwestern Ontario, Canada. Journal of Forestry Research, 26(4), 799-809.
  • Kunreuther, H., Linnerooth, J., & Vaupel, J. W. (1984). A decision-process perspective on risk and policy analysis. Management Science, 30(4), 475-485.
  • Menglei, L., & Yenchin, F. (2015). National Environmental Policy Act of the United States and Its Application in Climate Litigation-Evaluating Litigation Case by Friends of the Earth on Export-Import Bank of the United States and Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Meteorological and Environmental Research, 6(7), 23-27.
  • Munn R. E. (2002). Environmental Impact Assessment: Principles and Procedures. McGraw-Hill Book company.
  • Raj, P. K., & Lemoff, T. (2009). Risk analysis based LNG facility siting standard in NFPA 59A. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 22(6), 820-829.
  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: planning priority setting resource allocation New York; London: McGraw-Hill International Book.
  • Saaty, T. L. (1986). Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Management science, 32(7), 841-855.
  • Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell system technical journal, 27(3), 379-423.
  • Sheng, W., Huimin, W., Fahua, Z., Lei, Q., & Gang, L. (2014). Practice and Thinking on Current Planning Environmental Impact Assessment of Transmission and Transformation Power Grid in Jiangsu Province. Meteorological & Environmental Research, 5(1), 44-48.
  • Tzeng, G. H., & Huang, J. J. (2011). Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. CRC press.
  • Zahedi, F. (1986). A simulation study of estimation methods in the analytic hierarchy process. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 20(6), 347-354.
  • Zahedi, F. (1987). A utility approach to the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3-5), 387-395.
  • Zahedi, F. (1988). A Note on Input Consistency in the Application of AHP. Decision Sciences, 19(3), 708-710.


This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.