Fuzzy 가중치를 반영한 배출 저감 규제의 타당성 분석

윤종수; 변헌수; Daniel Jongsoo Yoon; Hun-Soo Byun

Korean Chemical Engineering Research, Vol.59, No.2, 186-190, May, 2021

DOI10.9713/kcer.2021.59.2.186 Export Citation

Fuzzy 가중치를 반영한 배출 저감 규제의 타당성 분석

Feasibility Analysis of Korea TURA Reflecting Fuzzy Weights

윤종수, 변헌수 ^†

전남대학교 화공생명공학과, 59626 전라남도 여수시 대학로 50(둔덕동)

Daniel Jongsoo Yoon, and Hun-Soo Byun^†

Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Chonnam National University, Yeosu, Jeonnam 59626, Korea

E-mail:

초록

규제당국은 유해 물질 배출을 저감 하는 규제를 시행하면서, 규제 이행에 따른 다양한 활동의 편익/비용 비율로 그 타당성을 제시한다. 그리고 비율 산정과정에서 규제 관련 속성의 중요도 가중치를 반영한다. 그런데, 전문가들은 가중치 설문 응답에서 애매함을 보이고 있으며, 정확한 의사 결정을 위해서는 이를 제거해야 한다. 본 연구에서는 이를 위한 퍼지-계층화 방법론을 이용하여 타당성여부를 적용하고, 이를 2019년 11월 시행된 우리나라의 ‘배출 저감 계획’규제 타당성 평가에 적용하였다.

The toxics regulatory body provides a benefit/cost ratio as a justification criterion while implementing regulations that induce the industry to reduce emissions voluntarily. Furthermore, since, the body wants to reflect not only the efficiency standard but also the policy standard in the evaluation of feasibility, it calculates the ratio by adjusting the importance weights. The problem is that respondents answer ambiguously. It should be removed for the reasonable evaluation. This study introduced a fuzzy-AHP methodology for this, and applied it to the voluntary emission reduction plan program in Korea.

Keywords:Justification of Korea TURA;Fuzzy-AHP;Importance Weights

[References]

Shin YC, National Institute of Environmental Sciences (2017).
TO21, “Research on Institutionalization of Chemical Emission Reduction,” Ministry of Environment (2019).
KDI, “AHP Decision-making Characteristics Analysis,” KDI, Center for Regulatory Studies (2013).
Yoon DJ, Byun HS, Clean Technol., 26(3), 168 (2020)
Tzeng GH, Huang JJ, “Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications,” p. 63 (2011).
Satty TL, The analytic hierarchy process, McGraw Hill, New York (1980).
Zahedi F, Interfaces, 16(4), 96 (1986)
Laarhoven PJM, Pedrycz W, Fuzzy Sets Systems, 11, 229 (1983)
Csutora R, Buckley JJ, Fuzzy Sets Systems, 120, 181 (2001)
Chang D, Jing Y, Zhu K, European Journal of Operational Research, 116, 450 (1998).
Opricovic S, Tzeng GH, International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 11, 635 (2003).
Choi KH, Han DW, Journal of the Korean Data & Information Science Society, 21(4), 699 (2010).
Kim SM, Kahng HK, Inernational Journal of Production Economics, 87, 153 (2004).
Ministry of Environment, Analysis of regulatory impact related to preparation/submission/disclosure of chemical reduction plan, Interim Report (2019).

[Related Articles]

[1] Shin YC, National Institute of Environmental Sciences (2017).

[2] TO21, “Research on Institutionalization of Chemical Emission Reduction,” Ministry of Environment (2019).

[3] KDI, “AHP Decision-making Characteristics Analysis,” KDI, Center for Regulatory Studies (2013).

[4] Yoon DJ, Byun HS, Clean Technol., 26(3), 168 (2020)

[5] Tzeng GH, Huang JJ, “Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications,” p. 63 (2011).

[6] Satty TL, The analytic hierarchy process, McGraw Hill, New York (1980).

[7] Zahedi F, Interfaces, 16(4), 96 (1986)

[8] Laarhoven PJM, Pedrycz W, Fuzzy Sets Systems, 11, 229 (1983)

[9] Csutora R, Buckley JJ, Fuzzy Sets Systems, 120, 181 (2001)

[10] Chang D, Jing Y, Zhu K, European Journal of Operational Research, 116, 450 (1998).

[11] Opricovic S, Tzeng GH, International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 11, 635 (2003).

[12] Choi KH, Han DW, Journal of the Korean Data & Information Science Society, 21(4), 699 (2010).

[13] Kim SM, Kahng HK, Inernational Journal of Production Economics, 87, 153 (2004).

[14] Ministry of Environment, Analysis of regulatory impact related to preparation/submission/disclosure of chemical reduction plan, Interim Report (2019).