Multi-criteria decision analysis for panama canal expansion project 2007
•
0 likes•196 views
The Panama Canal expansion project, also called the Third Set of Locks Project, doubled the capacity of the Panama Canal by adding a new lane of traffic allowing for a larger number of ships, and increasing the width and depth of the lanes and locks allowing larger ships to pass. The expanded canal began commercial operation on 26 June 2016. Former sub-administrator of the Panama Canal Commission Fernando Manfredo, shipping consultant Julio Manduley, and industrial entrepreneur George Richa M. said that the expansion was not necessary; they claimed that the construction of a mega-port on the Pacific side would be sufficient to meet probable future demand. In this presentation we try to analyze the workability and feasibility and the impacts of the project from different aspects
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Multi-criteria decision analysis for panama canal expansion project 2007
Similar to Multi-criteria decision analysis for panama canal expansion project 2007 (20)
More from YASSER ELSEDAWY
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Multi-criteria decision analysis for panama canal expansion project 2007
- 1. MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS FOR PANAMA CANAL EXPANSION PROJECT YEAR: 2007 Economic Assessment of Urban Transformations Elsedawy Yasser Karaka Zulal Regazzetti Valentina Visone Valeria
- 2. 1. MAIN GOAL: Evaluating the impact on the environment and producing the maximum sustainable benefit from the geological location of the canal, using Multi-Criteria Analysis. KEY PLAYERS: Industry groups, Transportation Institutes, Environmental Institutes and Public Agencies. STAKEHOLDERS: Shippers, Carriers, Ports, Environmentalists and Officials. DECISION ALTERNATIVES: Decide among 4 alternatives. Alternative 1 - Double the capacity of the Canal by adding a new lane of traffic allowing the passage of a higher number of ships - Increasing the width and depth of the lanes and locks allowing larger ships to pass Alternative 2 Double the capacity of the Canal by adding a new lane of traffic allowing the passage of a higher number of ships Alternative 3 Increasing the width and depth of the lanes and locks allowing larger ships to pass. Alternative 4 Do nothing AIMS & CRITERIA DECISON MAKING & ALTERNATIVES SCORING & WEIGHTING ALTERNATIVES DECISON FRAMEWORK ANALITICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP) DISCUSS RESULTS SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
- 3. 2. Criteria Indicator Unit of measure 1. Climate change 1.1 CO2 emissions from electricity and heat production 1.2 CO2 emissions from gaseous fuel consumption 1.3 CO2 emissions from solid fuel consumption 1.4 CO2 emissions from liquid fuel consumption Kt per 1000 Kt per 1000 Kt per 1000 Kt per 1000 2. Waste 2.1 Hazardous waste created 2.2 Local garbage collected Tonnes Tonnes 3. Water 3.1 Total hydrocarbons 3.2 Dissolved oxygen concentration 3.3 Suspended solids mg/l mg/l mg/l 4. Biodiversity 4.1 GEF benefits index for biodiversity 0 = no biodiversity potential to 100 = maximum 5. Adjusted net national income 5.1 Annual % growth % AIMS & CRITERIA DECISON MAKING & ALTERNATIVES SCORING & WEIGHTING ALTERNATIVES DECISON FRAMEWORK ANALITICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP) DISCUSS RESULTS SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
- 4. 2. 1. Climate change 1.1 CO2 emissions from electricity and heat production 1.2 CO2 emissions from gaseous fuel consumption 1.3 CO2 emissions from solid fuel consumption 1.4 CO2 emissions from liquid fuel consumption 1.5 Other greenhouse gas emissions. HFC, PFC and SF6 Overall CO2 Emissions Alternative 1 2.81 0.00 0.07 2.32 0.00 5.20 Alternative 2 2.23 0.00 0.13 1.87 0.00 4.23 Alternative 3 2.43 0.00 0.11 2.03 0.00 4.57 Alternative 4 2.05 0.00 0.15 1.74 0.00 3.94 2. Waste 2.1 Hazardous waste created 2.2 Local garbage collected Overall Waste Alternative 1 3094.70 514737.00 517831.70 Alternative 2 1624.82 656042.00 657666.82 Alternative 3 2138.29 594571.00 596709.29 Alternative 4 1181.87 674404.00 675585.87 3. Water 3.1 Total hydrocarbons 4. Water 3.3 Dissolved oxygen concentration 3.4 Suspended solids Overall water pollution Alternative 1 <0.001 6.20 8.37 14.57 Alternative 2 <0.001 7.96 5.33 13.29 Alternative 3 <0.001 8.57 6.65 15.22 Alternative 4 <0.004 7.78 4.94 12.72 4. Biodiversity 2.1 GEF benefits index for biodiversity Alternative 1 10.95 Alternative 2 11.57 Alternative 3 11.35 Alternative 4 11.75 5. Adjusted net national income 5.1 Annual % growth Alternative 1 6.11 Alternative 2 5.7 Alternative 3 6.01 Alternative 4 5.30 AIMS & CRITERIA DECISON MAKING & ALTERNATIVES SCORING & WEIGHTING ALTERNATIVES DECISON FRAMEWORK ANALITICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP) DISCUSS RESULTS SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
- 5. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Climate change Waste Water Biodiversity Adjusted net natonal income CO2 emissions from electricity & heat production CO2 emissions from gaseous fuel consumption CO2 emissions from solid fuel consumption CO2 emissions from liquid fuel consumption Other greenhouse gas emissions. HFC. PFC and SF6 Hazardous waste created Local garbage collected Total hydrocarbons Dissolved oxygen concentration Suspended solids GEF benefits index for biodiversity Annual % growth AIMS & CRITERIA DECISON MAKING & ALTERNATIVES SCORING & WEIGHTING ALTERNATIVES DECISON FRAMEWORK ANALITICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP) DISCUSS RESULTS SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
- 6. 4. Scoring Alternatives 1. Climate change 2. Waste 3. Water 4. Biodiversity benefit 5. Adjusted net national income Alternative 1 5.20 517831.70 14.57 10.95 6.11 Alternative 2 4.23 657666.82 13.29 11.57 5.70 Alternative 3 4.57 596709.29 15.22 11.35 6.01 Alternative 4 3.94 675585.87 12.72 11.75 5.30 1. Climate change 2. Waste 3. Water 4. Biodiversity benefit 5. Adjusted net national income SCORE RANK Alternative 1 0.00 100.00 26.00 0.00 100.00 38.9 4th Alternative 2 77.16 11.36 77.20 77.50 49.38 59.93 2nd Alternative 3 50.11 50.00 0.00 50.00 87.65 48.18 3rd Alternative 4 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 65 1st Weights 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.25 0.15 As expected, from the environmental perspective, “Alternative 4 = Do Nothing” seems to be the most preferable option AIMS & CRITERIA DECISON MAKING & ALTERNATIVES SCORING & WEIGHTING ALTERNATIVES DECISON FRAMEWORK ANALITICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP) DISCUSS RESULTS SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Not all the criteria will have the same importance: • A greater weight has been assigned to biodiversity and climate change because of their level of criticality underlined by Republic of Panama Country Environmental Analysis • Lower weight has been assigned to the other environmental impact criteria • Relevant weight has been assigned to the adjusted net national income because Panama Canal represents the country’s most relevant income source
- 7. 5. Sensitivity Analysis 1. Climate change 2. Waste 3. Water 4. Biodiversity benefit 5. Adjusted net national income SCORE RANK Alternative 1 0.00 100.00 26.00 0.00 100.00 38.9 4th Alternative 2 77.16 11.36 77.20 77.50 49.38 59.93 2nd Alternative 3 50.11 50.00 0.00 50.00 87.65 48.18 3rd Alternative 4 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 65 1st Weights 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.25 0.15 By assigning a higher weight to economic benefits over the environmental costs.. Overall Scores change and showing how much “Alternative 2 = Double the capacity of the Canal” Is more preferable option with respect to “Alternative 4 = Do Nothing” Therefore, (The project is highly sensitive to changes in the decision making criteria) AIMS & CRITERIA DECISON MAKING & ALTERNATIVES SCORING & WEIGHTING ALTERNATIVES DECISON FRAMEWORK ANALITICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP) DISCUSS RESULTS SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 1. Climate change 2. Waste 3. Water 4. Biodiversity benefit 5. Adjusted net national income SCORES RANK Alternative 1 0.00 100.00 26.00 0.00 100.00 42.6 4th Alternative 2 77.16 11.36 77.20 77.50 49.38 62.34 1st Alternative 3 50.11 50.00 0.00 50.00 87.65 56.32 3rd Alternative 4 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 60 2nd Weights 0.25 0.1 0.1 0.25 0.3
- 8. 6. 1. Climate change criterion Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 1 1.00 0.17 0.25 0.11 Alternative 2 6.00 1.00 2.00 0.33 Alternative 3 4.00 0.50 1.00 0.20 Alternative 4 9.00 3.00 5.00 1.00 Sum 20.00 4.67 8.25 1.64 2. Waste criterion Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 1 1.00 8.00 5.00 9.00 Alternative 2 0.13 1.00 0.25 2.00 Alternative 3 0.20 4.00 1.00 6.00 Alternative 4 0.11 0.50 0.17 1.00 Sum 1.44 13.50 6.42 18.00 3. Water criterion Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 1 1.00 0.25 3.00 0.14 Alternative 2 4.00 1.00 5.00 0.17 Alternative 3 0.33 0.20 1.00 0.11 Alternative 4 7.00 6.00 9.00 1.00 Sum 12.33 7.45 18.00 1.42 4. Biodiversity criterion Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 1 1.00 0.13 0.14 0.11 Alternative 2 8.00 1.00 3.00 0.25 Alternative 3 7.00 0.33 1.00 0.17 Alternative 4 9.00 4.00 6.00 1.00 Sum 25.00 5.46 10.14 1.53 5. National growth criterion Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 1 1.00 8.00 6.00 9.00 Alternative 2 0.13 1.00 0.33 2.00 Alternative 3 0.17 3.00 1.00 4.00 Alternative 4 0.11 0.50 0.25 1.00 Sum 1.40 12.50 7.58 16.00 AIMS & CRITERIA DECISON MAKING & ALTERNATIVES SCORING & WEIGHTING ALTERNATIVES DECISON FRAMEWORK ANALITICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP) DISCUSS RESULTS SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Comparative evaluation Hierarchic preference Bilateral comparison R matrix 1. Climate change 2. Waste 3. Water 4. Biodiversity benefit 5. Adjusted net national inc 1. Climate change 1.00 4.00 6.00 1.00 7.00 2. Waste 0.25 1.00 0.25 0.50 6.00 3. Water 0.17 4.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 4. Biodiversity benefit 1.00 2.00 6.00 1.00 5.00 5. Adjusted net national income 0.14 0.17 1.00 0.20 1.00 Sum 2.56 11.17 14.25 2.87 20.00
- 9. 6. Evaluation of alternatives 1. Climate change 2. Waste 3. Water 4. Biodiversity benefit 5. Adjusted net national income SCORES RANK Alternative 1 0.05 0.64 0.10 0.04 0.68 0.16 3rd Alternative 2 0.24 0.08 0.21 0.24 0.08 0.21 2nd Alternative 3 0.14 0.23 0.05 0.14 0.19 0.14 4th Alternative 4 0.58 0.05 0.64 0.58 0.05 0.49 1st Weights 0.37 0.14 0.12 0.32 0.05 AIMS & CRITERIA DECISON MAKING & ALTERNATIVES SCORING & WEIGHTING ALTERNATIVES DECISON FRAMEWORK ANALITICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP) DISCUSS RESULTS SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Synthesis of priorities Even applying AHP Method the outcomes are the same: • Alternative 4 – Do nothing prevails over all other alternative projects, • The second best alternative seems to be Alternative 2 - doubling the capacity of the Canal by adding a new lane of traffic allowing the passage of a higher number of ships
- 10. 7. AIMS & CRITERIA DECISON MAKING & ALTERNATIVES SCORING & WEIGHTING ALTERNATIVES DECISON FRAMEWORK ANALITICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP) DISCUSS RESULTS SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Conclusions: • The Project will significantly increase revenue in the country, both from the tolls as well as from the positive effect on the overall growth of the economy, and the direct and indirect creation of jobs; on the other hand it produces negative impacts on the Environment. • The expansion of the Panama Canal will improve the competitiveness of the route in world maritime transportation. • Being the Project Direct Impact Area mainly located within the area for exclusive use of the ACP, and includes most of the areas that are subject to the historic activities of construction, operation and maintenance of the Canal. Recommendations: • Environmental Management Planning must be implemented from conception, to completion and maintenance operations of the project, • Monitoring and Follow-up plan should ensure that all impacts are controlled
- 11. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!