Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:13:22.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Logic–based decision support for strategic environmental assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2010

MARCO GAVANELLI ,
FABRIZIO RIGUZZI ,
MICHELA MILANO  and
PAOLO CAGNOLI
MARCO GAVANELLI
Affiliation:
ENDIF - Università di Ferrara, Italy (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected])
FABRIZIO RIGUZZI
Affiliation:
ENDIF - Università di Ferrara, Italy (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected])
MICHELA MILANO
Affiliation:
DEIS - Università di Bologna, Italy (e-mail: [email protected])
PAOLO CAGNOLI
Affiliation:
ARPA Emilia-Romagna, Italy (e-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Strategic Environmental Assessment is a procedure aimed at introducing systematic assessment of the environmental effects of plans and programs. This procedure is based on the so-called coaxial matrices that define dependencies between plan activities (infrastructures, plants, resource extractions, buildings, etc.) and positive and negative environmental impacts, and dependencies between these impacts and environmental receptors. Up to now, this procedure is manually implemented by environmental experts for checking the environmental effects of a given plan or program, but it is never applied during the plan/program construction. A decision support system, based on a clear logic semantics, would be an invaluable tool not only in assessing a single, already defined plan, but also during the planning process in order to produce an optimized, environmentally assessed plan and to study possible alternative scenarios. We propose two logic-based approaches to the problem, one based on Constraint Logic Programming and one on Probabilistic Logic Programming that could be, in the future, conveniently merged to exploit the advantages of both. We test the proposed approaches on a real energy plan and we discuss their limitations and advantages.

Keywords

strategic environmental assessmentregional planningconstraint logic programmingprobabilistic logic programmingcausality
Type
Regular Papers
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 10 , Special Issue 4-6: 26th International Conference on Logic Programming , July 2010 , pp. 643 - 658
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bistarelli, S., Montanari, U., and Rossi, F. 1997. Semiring-based constraint satisfaction and optimization. Journal of the ACM 44, 2, 201–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dantsin, E. 1991. Probabilistic logic programs and their semantics. In Proceedings of the 2nd Russian Conference on Logic Programming, Voronkov, A., Ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 592. Springer, Berlin, 152–164.Google Scholar
De Koninck, L., Schrijvers, T., and Demoen, B. 2006. INCLP(R)—interval-based nonlinear constraint logic programming over the reals. In WLP, Fink, M., Tompits, H., and Woltran, S., Eds. INFSYS Research Report, vol. 1843-06-02. Technische Universität Wien, Austria, 91–100.Google Scholar
De Raedt, L., Kimmig, A., and Toivonen, H. 2007. ProbLog: A probabilistic Prolog and its application in link discovery. In IJCAI 2007, Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Hyderabad, India, January 6–12, 2007, M. M. Veloso, Ed. 2462–2467.Google Scholar
Fuhr, N. 2000. Probabilistic Datalog: Implementing logical information retrieval for advanced applications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 51, 2, 95–110.3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomes, C. P. 2009. Challenges for constraint reasoning and optimization in computational sustainability. In Intl. Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, Gent, I. P., Ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5732. Springer, Berlin, 2–4.Google Scholar
Hermenegildo, M. V., Bueno, F., Carro, M., López-García, P., Morales, J. F., and Puebla, G. 2008. An overview of the Ciao multiparadigm language and program development environment and its design philosophy. In Concurrency, Graphs and Models, Degano, P., Nicola, R. De, and Meseguer, J., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5065. Springer, Berlin, 209–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaffar, J. and Maher, M. J. 1994. Constraint logic programming: A survey. Journal of Logic Programming 19/20, 503–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaffar, J., Michaylov, S., Stuckey, P. J., and Yap, R. H. C. 1992. The CLP(ℛ) language and system. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 14, 3, 339–395.Google Scholar
Meert, W., Struyf, J., and Blockeel, H. 2009. CP-Logic theory inference with contextual variable elimination and comparison to BDD based inference methods. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming, De Raedt, L., Ed. KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
Pearl, J. 2000. Causality. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Poole, D. 1997. The independent choice logic for modelling multiple agents under uncertainty. Artificial Intelligence 94, 1–2, 7–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riguzzi, F. 2007. A top down interpreter for LPAD and CP–logic. In AI*IA 2007: Artificial Intelligence and Human-Oriented Computing, Basili, R. and Pazienza, M. T., Eds. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 4733. Springer, Berlin, 109–120.Google Scholar
Riguzzi, F. 2008. Inference with logic programs with annotated disjunctions under the well founded semantics. In International Conference on Logic Programming, de la Banda, M. G. and Pontelli, E., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5366. Springer, Berlin, 667–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riguzzi, F. 2009. Extended semantics and inference for the Independent Choice Logic. Logic Journal of the IGPL 17, 6, 589–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos Costa, V., Page, D., Qazi, M., and Cussens, J. 2003. CLP(): Constraint logic programming for probabilistic knowledge. In Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Sato, T. and Kameya, Y. 1997. PRISM: A language for symbolic-statistical modeling. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Pollack, M. E., Ed. Morgan Kaufmann, 1330–1339.Google Scholar
Schiex, T., Fargier, H., and Verfaillie, G. 1995. Valued constraint satisfaction problems: Hard and easy problems. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 95, vol. 1. Morgan Kaufmann, 631–639.Google Scholar
Shen, K. and Schimpf, J. 2005. Eplex: Harnessing mathematical programming solvers for constraint logic programming. In Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming - CP 2005, van Beek, P., Ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3709. Springer, Berlin, 622–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorensen, J. C. and Moss, M. L. 1973. Procedures and Programs to Assist in the Impact Statement Process. Technical report, University of California, Berkely.Google Scholar
Vennekens, J., Denecker, M., and Bruynooghe, M. 2009. CP-logic: A language of causal probabilistic events and its relation to logic programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 9, 3, 245–308.Google Scholar
Vennekens, J., Verbaeten, S., and Bruynooghe, M. 2004. Logic programs with annotated disjunctions. In International Conference on Logic Programming, Demoen, B. and Lifschitz, V., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3131. Springer, Heidelberg, 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, N.-F., Nagasawa, I., Umeda, M., Katamine, K., and Hirota, T. 1996. B-Prolog: A high performance Prolog compiler. In IEA/AIE, Tanaka, T., Ohsuga, S., and Ali, M., Eds. Gordon and Breach, 790.Google Scholar