IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i4p2292-d751889.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Evaluating Transitional and Post-Mining Options—An Innovative Perspective from the EIT ReviRIS Project

Author

Listed:
  • Sandra Lourenço Amaro

    (NOVA FCT & GeoBioTec—GeoBioSciences, GeoTechnologies and GeoEngineering, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal)

  • Sofia Barbosa

    (NOVA FCT & GeoBioTec—GeoBioSciences, GeoTechnologies and GeoEngineering, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal)

  • Gloria Ammerer

    (Montanuniversität Leoben, RIC Leoben, 8700 Leoben, Austria)

  • Aina Bruno

    (Amphos 21 Consulting S.L., 08019 Barcelona, Spain)

  • Jordi Guimerà

    (Amphos 21 Consulting S.L., 08019 Barcelona, Spain)

  • Ioannis Orfanoudakis

    (ECHMES Ltd., 4 Papadiamantopoulou, 11528 Athens, Greece)

  • Anna Ostręga

    (Faculty of Civil Engineering and Resource Management, AGH University of Science and Technology, 30-059 Kraków, Poland)

  • Evangelia Mylona

    (Laboratory of Metallurgy, School of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 15780 Zografou, Greece)

  • Jessica Strydom

    (Department of Geology, Tallinn University of Technology—TalTech, Ehitajate tee 5, 19086 Tallinn, Estonia)

  • Michael Hitch

    (Department of Geology, Tallinn University of Technology—TalTech, Ehitajate tee 5, 19086 Tallinn, Estonia
    WA School of Mines: Minerals, Energy and Chemical Engineering, Curtin University, Bentley, WA 6845, Australia)

Abstract

In mine design and planning, identifying appropriate Post-Mining Land Use (PMLU) is necessary and crucial to achieving environmental quality and socioeconomic renewal. In this context, Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods are used to support decision-maker and stakeholder decisions. However, most studies regarding the application of MCDM methods to PMLU decisions do not favor their widespread use because they start from an already structured decisional problem. The structure they present may not apply to another PMLU decision. Therefore, the primary goal of this study is to present an innovative methodology and its corresponding framework to help decision-makers and stakeholders structure their PMLU decisions. This innovative methodology can be used from an early stage, with a low level of detail, until a later stage, with a high level of detail, and is composed of three main stages. The first stage is selecting the Transitional Post-Mining Landscape Profile, which guides the user to different Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) goals. The second stage is developing criteria and alternatives according to the MCDA goal, using topics representing essential dimensions that cannot be disregarded, and testing the MCDM methods. Finally, the third stage is the participatory process and final application of MCDM methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Sandra Lourenço Amaro & Sofia Barbosa & Gloria Ammerer & Aina Bruno & Jordi Guimerà & Ioannis Orfanoudakis & Anna Ostręga & Evangelia Mylona & Jessica Strydom & Michael Hitch, 2022. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for Evaluating Transitional and Post-Mining Options—An Innovative Perspective from the EIT ReviRIS Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-13, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:4:p:2292-:d:751889
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/4/2292/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/4/2292/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nolberto Munier & Eloy Hontoria & Fernando Jiménez-Sáez, 2019. "Strategic Approach in Multi-Criteria Decision Making," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-3-030-02726-1, September.
    2. Svetla Stoilova & Nolberto Munier & Martin Kendra & Tomáš Skrúcaný, 2020. "Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Railway Network Performance in Countries of the TEN-T Orient–East Med Corridor," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-22, February.
    3. Philip-Mark Spanidis & Christos Roumpos & Francis Pavloudakis, 2020. "A Multi-Criteria Approach for the Evaluation of Low Risk Restoration Projects in Continuous Surface Lignite Mines," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-22, May.
    4. Nigim, K. & Munier, N. & Green, J., 2004. "Pre-feasibility MCDM tools to aid communities in prioritizing local viable renewable energy sources," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 29(11), pages 1775-1791.
    5. Bottero, M. & Ferretti, V. & Figueira, J.R. & Greco, S. & Roy, B., 2015. "Dealing with a multiple criteria environmental problem with interaction effects between criteria through an extension of the Electre III method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(3), pages 837-850.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eloy Hontoria & Alejandro López-Belchí & Nolberto Munier & Francisco Vera-García, 2021. "A MCDM Methodology to Determine the Most Critical Variables in the Pressure Drop and Heat Transfer in Minichannels," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-13, April.
    2. Klein, Sharon J.W. & Coffey, Stephanie, 2016. "Building a sustainable energy future, one community at a time," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 867-880.
    3. Alkan, Ömer & Albayrak, Özlem Karadağ, 2020. "Ranking of renewable energy sources for regions in Turkey by fuzzy entropy based fuzzy COPRAS and fuzzy MULTIMOORA," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 712-726.
    4. Henao, Felipe & Cherni, Judith A. & Jaramillo, Patricia & Dyner, Isaac, 2012. "A multicriteria approach to sustainable energy supply for the rural poor," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(3), pages 801-809.
    5. Ana Sara Costa & Isabella M. Lami & Salvatore Greco & José Rui Figueira & José Borbinha, 2021. "Assigning a house for refugees: an application of a multiple criteria nominal classification method," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 2651-2687, December.
    6. Frank Hanssen & Roel May & Jiska van Dijk & Jan Ketil Rød, 2018. "Spatial Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Tool Suite for Consensus-Based Siting of Renewable Energy Structures," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-28, September.
    7. Francesco Sica & Francesco Tajani & Maria Rosaria Guarini & Rossana Ranieri, 2023. "A Sensitivity Index to Perform the Territorial Sustainability in Uncertain Decision-Making Conditions," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, February.
    8. Bottero, M. & Ferretti, V. & Figueira, J.R. & Greco, S. & Roy, B., 2018. "On the Choquet multiple criteria preference aggregation model: Theoretical and practical insights from a real-world application," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(1), pages 120-140.
    9. Andrzej Bialas, 2022. "Towards a Software Tool Supporting Decisions in Planning Heap Revitalization Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-33, February.
    10. Pei-Hsuan Tsai & Chih-Jou Chen & Ho-Chin Yang, 2021. "Using Porter’s Diamond Model to Assess the Competitiveness of Taiwan’s Solar Photovoltaic Industry," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440209, January.
    11. Barbati, M. & Figueira, J.R. & Greco, S. & Ishizaka, A. & Panaro, S., 2023. "A multiple criteria methodology for priority based portfolio selection," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    12. Shen, Yung-Chi & Chou, Chiyang James & Lin, Grace T.R., 2011. "The portfolio of renewable energy sources for achieving the three E policy goals," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 2589-2598.
    13. Terrados, J. & Almonacid, G. & Pérez-Higueras, P., 2009. "Proposal for a combined methodology for renewable energy planning. Application to a Spanish region," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(8), pages 2022-2030, October.
    14. Karunathilake, Hirushie & Hewage, Kasun & Mérida, Walter & Sadiq, Rehan, 2019. "Renewable energy selection for net-zero energy communities: Life cycle based decision making under uncertainty," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 558-573.
    15. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Güleryüz, Sezin, 2016. "An integrated DEMATEL-ANP approach for renewable energy resources selection in Turkey," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 435-448.
    16. Athanasios Kolios & Varvara Mytilinou & Estivaliz Lozano-Minguez & Konstantinos Salonitis, 2016. "A Comparative Study of Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Methods under Stochastic Inputs," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-21, July.
    17. Mladen Krstić & Giulio Paolo Agnusdei & Snežana Tadić & Milovan Kovač & Pier Paolo Miglietta, 2023. "A Novel Axial-Distance-Based Aggregated Measurement (ADAM) Method for the Evaluation of Agri-Food Circular-Economy-Based Business Models," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-27, March.
    18. Patlitzianas, Konstantinos D. & Pappa, Anna & Psarras, John, 2008. "An information decision support system towards the formulation of a modern energy companies' environment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 790-806, April.
    19. Zbigniew Kasztelewicz & Mateusz Sikora & Maciej Zajączkowski, 2020. "Method of Selecting Opening Cut Location Using Multi-Criteria Analysis of Decision Variant Mapping," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-14, September.
    20. Çolak, Murat & Kaya, İhsan, 2017. "Prioritization of renewable energy alternatives by using an integrated fuzzy MCDM model: A real case application for Turkey," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 840-853.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:4:p:2292-:d:751889. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.