Publicação
The use of multi-criteria analysis in the recovery of abandoned mines : a study of intervention in Portugal
| Resumo: | Considering that the budget for the recovery of abandoned mining zones is limited, it was necessary to develop a model that would make it possible to choose which mines should be targeted for intervention, taking into account the various factors by which their external effects may be assessed (the environment, public health, the landscape and their usefulness to industrial archaeology). A multi-criteria analysis using the analytic hierarchy process, in which each major factor, result, and mine are compared, was employed to generate an innovative assessment model that guaranteed that the overall value of the intervention was maximised, compared to two other methods (intervention ranked by the greatest overall severity and ranked by the cost–benefit ratio). The results indicate an economically and socially viable and efficient choice, making it possible to undertake new similar studies |
|---|---|
| Autores principais: | Matos, Pedro Verga |
| Outros Autores: | Cardadeiro, Eduardo; Silva, José Amado da; Muylder, Cristiana Fernandes de |
| Assunto: | Brownfields Multi-Criteria Analysis Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Capital Rationing Decision |
| Ano: | 2018 |
| País: | Portugal |
| Tipo de documento: | artigo |
| Tipo de acesso: | acesso aberto |
| Instituição associada: | Universidade de Lisboa |
| Idioma: | inglês |
| Origem: | Repositório da Universidade de Lisboa |
| Resumo: | Considering that the budget for the recovery of abandoned mining zones is limited, it was necessary to develop a model that would make it possible to choose which mines should be targeted for intervention, taking into account the various factors by which their external effects may be assessed (the environment, public health, the landscape and their usefulness to industrial archaeology). A multi-criteria analysis using the analytic hierarchy process, in which each major factor, result, and mine are compared, was employed to generate an innovative assessment model that guaranteed that the overall value of the intervention was maximised, compared to two other methods (intervention ranked by the greatest overall severity and ranked by the cost–benefit ratio). The results indicate an economically and socially viable and efficient choice, making it possible to undertake new similar studies |
|---|