Volume 13, Issue 4 (3-2026)
J Environ Health Eng 2026, 13(4): 393-411 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Nazari H, Sobhanardakani S. Assessment and prioritization of environmental risks in the Western oil and gas industries using fuzzy AHP (FAHP). J Environ Health Eng 2026; 13 (4) :393-411
URL: http://jehe.abzums.ac.ir/article-1-1143-en.html
URL: http://jehe.abzums.ac.ir/article-1-1143-en.html
1- M.Sc. in Health, Safety & Environmental Engineering, Department of the Environment, Ha.C., Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran
2- Ph.D. in Environmental Science, Professor in Environmental Science, Department of the Environment, Ha.C., Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran ,s_sobhan@iau.ac.ir
2- Ph.D. in Environmental Science, Professor in Environmental Science, Department of the Environment, Ha.C., Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran ,
Abstract: (164 Views)
Background: As the largest energy production sector in the world, the oil and gas industries have always faced many environmental challenges that can have adverse consequences for human health and natural ecosystems. Therefore, this study was conducted to assess and prioritize of environmental risks in the Western oil and gas industries using fuzzy AHP (FAHP)
Materials and Methods: In this descriptive study, by using the fuzzy AHP (FAHP), environmental risks were identified and weighted. In so doing, the criteria and sub-criteria including air pollution, water pollution, soil contamination, habitat destruction, noise pollution, long-term risks, and industrial wastes were identified and prioritized by 30 experts. For this purpose, data were collected by a fuzzy pairwise comparison questionnaire and then analyzed using the FAHP method. SPSS version 20 was used for statistical processing and and analysis of the data.
Results: The results showed that, with the exception of two cases which achieved the necessary consistency rate after modification, all matrices had CR ≤ 0.1, which indicates the high validity of the results and the accuracy of the method used. Also, "chemical leakage into water," "potentially toxic elements in soil," and "destruction of forest ecosystems" had the greatest weight and importance among the identified environmental risks. Therefore, for optimal management of the identified risks, it is recommended to conduct regular and systematic monitoring of water and soil resources, reduce construction activities in forest areasand sensitive habitats, and also require the use of anti-leakage systems in pipelines.
Conclusion: As the results showed, by determining management priorities, it is possible to optimally allocate resources, provide effective mitigation solutions for each risk, and design monitoring and implementation plans based on the relative importance of each risk. Therefore, for optimal management of the identified risks, it is recommended to conduct regular and systematic monitoring of water and soil resources, reduce construction activities in forest areas and sensitive habitats, and also require the use of anti-leakage systems in pipelines.
Sensitivity analysis confirmed that water and soil-related risks remained stable across different scenarios and required urgent management attention. Thus, this study provides a systematic framework for prioritizing environmental risk management, which can be applied by policymakers and industrial managers to implement sustainable development strategies and reduce negative environmental impacts.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2025/11/3 | Accepted: 2025/11/29 | Published: 2026/03/18
Received: 2025/11/3 | Accepted: 2025/11/29 | Published: 2026/03/18
References
1. Brown J, Smith T, Lee, K. Environmental impacts of oil and gas industry. Environmental Studies Journal. 2020;15(3):230-48.
2. Smith R. Greenhouse gas emissions in energy sectors. Climate Impact Reports. 2021;6(3): 154-68.
3. Lamb IP, Massam MR, Mills SC, Bryant RG, Edwards DP. Global threats of extractive industries to vertebrate biodiversity. Current Biology. 2024;34(16):3673-84. [DOI:10.1016/j.cub.2024.06.077]
4. Berkhout BW, Budria A, Thieltges DW, Slabbekoorn H. Anthropogenic noise pollution and wildlife diseases. Trends in Parasitology. 2023;39(3):181-90. [DOI:10.1016/j.pt.2022.12.002]
5. Williams G, Green L. Soil contamination and agriculture impacts. Journal of Agro-Environmental Research. 2020;5(2):88-105.
6. Tsamos P, Papagiannis S, Xarchoulakos D, Kehagia K, Noli F. The impact of crude oil facilities on the accumulation of heavy metals and radionuclides in a coastal environment. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution. 2025;236:667. [DOI:10.1007/s11270-025-08264-9]
7. Shapovalova D. Climate change and oil and gas production regulation: an impossible reconciliation?. Journal of International Economic Law. 2023;26(4):817-35. [DOI:10.1093/jiel/jgad032]
8. Aydin N, Seker S, Şen C. A new risk assessment framework for safety in oil and gas industry: Application of FMEA and BWM based picture fuzzy MABAC. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. 2022;219:111059. [DOI:10.1016/j.petrol.2022.111059]
9. Martinez S, Patel R. Sustainable development policies for oil industries. Sustainability and Environment. 2024;12(1):67-82.
10. Bandarja M, Jozi SA. Health, safety, and environmental risk assessment for Hydrocracker Unit of Bandar Abbas in Refinement of Oil Company by EFMEA Method. Journal of Environmental Studies. 2014;39(4):105-24 (In Persian).
11. Kasharou J, Saghatoleslami N. Identification and investigation of process and environmental hazards by HAZOP Method in tank farm unit of Sarakhs Shahid Hasheminejad Gas Refinery. Iranian Gas Engineering Journal. 2016;2(3):46-51 (In Persian).
12. Askari MM, Sadeghi Shahedani M, Seiflou S. Identifying and prioritizing risks of upstream oil and gas projects in Iran based on Risk Breakdown Structure (RBS) and TOPSIS Technique. Journal of Economic Research and Policies. 2016;24(78):57-96 (In Persian).
13. Noori H, Cheraghi M, Eslami Baladeh A. A hybrid fuzzy MADM model for environmental risk assessment: a case of an oil and gas exploitation area. Journal of Health and Safety at Work. 2019;9(3):200-11 (In Persian).
14. Emami M, Hejazi B, Karimi M, Mousavi SA. Quantitative risk assessment and risk reduction of integrated acid gas enrichment and amine regeneration process using Aspen Plus dynamic simulation. Results in Engineering. 2022;15:100566. [DOI:10.1016/j.rineng.2022.100566]
15. Heydari Z, Rahmani V, Heydari AA, Motavassel M. Risk assessment and risk management of Kermanshah Province Gas Company using HAZOP Method. Iranian Journal of Oil & Gas Science and Technology. 2022;11(1):28-37.
16. Chang D-Y. Theory and methodology applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research. 1996;95:649-55. [DOI:10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2]
17. Semin AN, Faminskaya MV, Ponkratov VV, Mikhayluk ON, Shapoval GN. Risk assessment and its management for environmental pollution in oil refinery using FMEA approach. Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences. 2022;21(3):603-22.
18. Gharoun N, Jozi SA. Environmental risk management of oil products transfer in pipeline of Bandar Abbas-Sirjan by using Bow_Tie Method. Journal of Environmental Studies. 2013;39(3):133-50 (In Persian).
19. Aydin N, Seker S, Şen C. A new risk assessment framework for safety in oil and gas industry: Application of FMEA and BWM based picture fuzzy MABAC. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. 2022;219:111059. [DOI:10.1016/j.petrol.2022.111059]
20. Mandal CS, Agarwal M. A review on Quantitative Risk Assessments for Oil and Gas installations and changes in Risk Evaluation Techniques. Materialstoday: PROCEEDINGS. 2024;99:145-53. [DOI:10.1016/j.matpr.2023.07.059]
21. Cheraghi M, Shahriari I. Environmental risk assessment of the development of Lali oil field using AHP and EFMEA methods and modeling of soil pollution resulting from it in a GIS environment. National Conference on Architecture, Civil Engineering, Urban Development and Horizons of Islamic Art in the Second Step Statement of the Revolution. Tabriz Islamic Art University, 2021; 25 P.
22. Afzali Behbahani N, Ahmadi A, Khodadadi Karimvand M. Assessment of environmental risks resulting from oil well drilling operations using the FMEA method and the combined technique of ENTROPY and TOPSIS. 3rd International Conference on Science and Technology. Georgia, 2016; 10 p.
23. Bahrami S, Sotoudeh A, Jamshidi N, Elmi MR. Environmental risk assessment of Kermanshah petrochemical complex using FMEA method. Environmental Sciences. 2018;16 (3):1-24 (In Persian).
24. Balist J, Malek Mohammadi B, Chehrzar F, Moarab Y. Environmental risk assessment of Gachsaran Oil Refinery production unit by integrating multi criteria decision making and environmental failure-mode and effects analysis. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. 2018;20(1):165-78 (In Persian).
25. Johari Z, Cheraghi M, Sobhan Ardakani S. Environmental risk assessment of Ilam Petrochemical Company using Analytic Network Process (ANP) and the Technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) methods in 2016 . Journal of Ilam University Medical Sciences. 2018;26(5):79-88 (In Persian). [DOI:10.29252/sjimu.26.5.79]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
