IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jrpoli/v69y2020ics0301420720308916.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Game theory for analyzing and improving environmental management in the mining industry

Author

Listed:
  • Collins, Benjamin C.
  • Kumral, Mustafa

Abstract

The interactions, negotiations and decision-making involved in environmental sustainability in the mining industry are intricate and multi-faceted. Negotiations between communities, companies, governments and countless other stakeholders occur predominantly during the permitting stage where potential impacts are estimated, management plans are established, site remediation is planned, and the sharing of benefits is discussed. Game theory is a structured tool that can investigate the interactions between two or more players to understand their actions under given conditions. There are many applications of game theory in economics, environmental economics, business, policy, and sciences; however, there are limited examples of applications in the mining industry. With a multi-criteria approach, this research develops five games to explore game theory for the mining industry. The games are developed to investigate scenarios that maximize both overall sustainability and environmental sustainability. A discussion is provided on the challenges of incorporating multi-criteria as well as the general issues with modelling environmental management problems with game theory for the mining industry. Finally, this paper concludes by providing future direction for further research and mineral policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Collins, Benjamin C. & Kumral, Mustafa, 2020. "Game theory for analyzing and improving environmental management in the mining industry," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:69:y:2020:i:c:s0301420720308916
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101860
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420720308916
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101860?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chen, Rong-Hui & Lin, Yuanhsu & Tseng, Ming-Lang, 2015. "Multicriteria analysis of sustainable development indicators in the construction minerals industry in China," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(P1), pages 123-133.
    2. Craik, Neil & Gardner, Holly & McCarthy, Daniel, 2017. "Indigenous – corporate private governance and legitimacy: Lessons learned from impact and benefit agreements," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 379-388.
    3. Bui, Nuong Thi & Kawamura, Akira & Kim, Kyoung Woong & Prathumratana, Lunchakorn & Kim, Tae-Heok & Yoon, Suk-Ho & Jang, Min & Amaguchi, Hideo & Bui, Duong Du & Truong, Ngoc Tu, 2017. "Proposal of an indicator-based sustainability assessment framework for the mining sector of APEC economies," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 405-417.
    4. Peck, Philip & Sinding, Knud, 2009. "Financial assurance and mine closure: Stakeholder expectations and effects on operating decisions," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 227-233, December.
    5. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    6. Lucas Kruitwagen & Kaveh Madani & Ben Caldecott & Mark H. W. Workman, 2017. "Game theory and corporate governance: conditions for effective stewardship of companies exposed to climate change risks," Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 14-36, January.
    7. Han, Aiping & Ge, Jianping & Lei, Yalin, 2015. "An adjustment in regulation policies and its effects on market supply: Game analysis for China’s rare earths," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(P2), pages 30-42.
    8. Winston W. Chang, 2017. "World Trade and the Environment: Issues and Policies," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 435-479, August.
    9. Manfred M. Fischer & Peter Nijkamp (ed.), 2014. "Handbook of Regional Science," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-642-23430-9, December.
    10. Ken Binmore, 2007. "Does Game Theory Work? The Bargaining Challenge," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262026074, April.
    11. Hector Viveros, 2016. "Examining Stakeholders' Perceptions of Mining Impacts and Corporate Social Responsibility," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 50-64, January.
    12. Owen, John R. & Kemp, Deanna, 2013. "Social licence and mining: A critical perspective," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 29-35.
    13. John M. Gowdy, 1997. "The Value of Biodiversity: Markets, Society, and Ecosystems," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(1), pages 25-41.
    14. Nick Hanley & Henk Folmer (ed.), 1998. "Game Theory and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1083.
    15. Richard Heede, 2014. "Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane emissions to fossil fuel and cement producers, 1854–2010," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(1), pages 229-241, January.
    16. Kenter, Jasper O. & O'Brien, Liz & Hockley, Neal & Ravenscroft, Neil & Fazey, Ioan & Irvine, Katherine N. & Reed, Mark S. & Christie, Michael & Brady, Emily & Bryce, Rosalind & Church, Andrew & Cooper, 2015. "What are shared and social values of ecosystems?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 86-99.
    17. Svobodova, Kamila & Yellishetty, Mohan & Vojar, Jiri, 2019. "Coal mining in Australia: Understanding stakeholder knowledge of mining and mine rehabilitation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 421-430.
    18. Martinez-Alier, Joan & Munda, Giuseppe & O'Neill, John, 1998. "Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 277-286, September.
    19. Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Reza Maknoon & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, 2015. "Multiple nash equilibriums and evaluation of strategies. New application of MCDM methods," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 290-306, April.
    20. Herman E. Daly, 2007. "Ecological Economics and Sustainable Development, Selected Essays of Herman Daly," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12606.
    21. Rongwu Lu & Xinhua Wang & Hao Yu & Dan Li, 2018. "Multiparty Evolutionary Game Model in Coal Mine Safety Management and Its Application," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-10, March.
    22. Szidarovszky, Ferenc & Duckstein, Lucien & Bogardi, Istvan, 1984. "Multiobjective management of mining under water hazard by game theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 251-258, February.
    23. Mariusz Krzak, 2013. "The Evaluation Of An Ore Deposit Development Prospect Through Application Of The "Games Against Nature" Approach," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 30(06), pages 1-18.
    24. Constantin Zopounidis & Michael Doumpos, 2017. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making," Post-Print hal-02880222, HAL.
    25. Vela-Almeida, Diana & Brooks, Grace & Kosoy, Nicolas, 2015. "Setting the limits to extraction: A biophysical approach to mining activities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 189-196.
    26. Alyson Warhurst & Ligia Noronha, 2000. "Corporate strategy and viable future land use: planning for closure from the outset of mining," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 24(2), pages 153-164, May.
    27. Henckens, M.L.C.M. & Ryngaert, C.M.J. & Driessen, P.P.J. & Worrell, E., 2018. "Normative principles and the sustainable use of geologically scarce mineral resources," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 351-359.
    28. Ascough, J.C. & Maier, H.R. & Ravalico, J.K. & Strudley, M.W., 2008. "Future research challenges for incorporation of uncertainty in environmental and ecological decision-making," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 383-399.
    29. Dianfa Wu & Zhiping Yang & Ningling Wang & Chengzhou Li & Yongping Yang, 2018. "An Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model and AHP Weighting Uncertainty Analysis for Sustainability Assessment of Coal-Fired Power Units," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-27, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zeng, Lanyan & Liu, Shi Qiang & Kozan, Erhan & Corry, Paul & Masoud, Mahmoud, 2021. "A comprehensive interdisciplinary review of mine supply chain management," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    2. Jandieri, Gigo, 2022. "A generalized model for assessing and intensifying the recycling of metal-bearing industrial waste: A new approach to the resource policy of manganese industry in Georgia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    3. Yıldız, Taşkın Deniz & Güner, Mehmet Oğuz & Kural, Orhan, 2024. "Effects of EU-Compliant mining waste regulation on Turkish mining sector: A review of characterization, classification, storage, management, recovery of mineral wastes," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    4. Aleksandr Rakhmangulov & Konstantin Burmistrov & Nikita Osintsev, 2022. "Selection of Open-Pit Mining and Technical System’s Sustainable Development Strategies Based on MCDM," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-31, June.
    5. Quayson, Matthew & Bai, Chunguang & Mahmoudi, Amin & Hu, Weihao & Chen, Wei & Omoruyi, Osayuwamen, 2023. "Designing a decision support tool for integrating ESG into the natural resource extraction industry for sustainable development using the ordinal priority approach," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(PA).
    6. Caetano, Rafaela Vital & Marques, António Cardoso, 2023. "Could energy transition be a game changer for the transfer of polluting industries from developed to developing countries? An application of game theory," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 351-363.
    7. Shuying Li & Guoping Tu, 2022. "Probabilistic Linguistic Matrix Game Based on Fuzzy Envelope and Prospect Theory with Its Application," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-30, March.

    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. Balaine, Lorraine & Gallai, Nicola & Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Kephaliacos, Charilaos, 2020. "Trading off environmental goods for compensations: Insights from traditional and deliberative valuation methods in the Ecuadorian Amazon," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    2. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    3. Tiziano Gomiero, 2016. "Soil Degradation, Land Scarcity and Food Security: Reviewing a Complex Challenge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-41, March.
    4. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    5. Spangenberg, Joachim H. & von Haaren, Christina & Settele, Josef, 2014. "The ecosystem service cascade: Further developing the metaphor. Integrating societal processes to accommodate social processes and planning, and the case of bioenergy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 22-32.
    6. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    7. Leslie Carnoye & Rita Lopes, 2015. "Participatory Environmental Valuation: A Comparative Analysis of Four Case Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-23, July.
    8. Grillos, Tara & Bottazzi, Patrick & Crespo, David & Asquith, Nigel & Jones, Julia P.G., 2019. "In-kind conservation payments crowd in environmental values and increase support for government intervention: A randomized trial in Bolivia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Kolinjivadi, Vijay, 2019. "Avoiding dualisms in ecological economics: Towards a dialectically-informed understanding of co-produced socionatures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 32-41.
    10. Öhlund, Erika & Malmaeus, Mikael & Fauré, Eléonore, 2020. "The significance of different realms of value for agricultural land in Sweden," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    11. Jacobs, Sander & Martín-López, Berta & Barton, David N. & Dunford, Robert & Harrison, Paula A. & Kelemen, Eszter & Saarikoski, Heli & Termansen, Mette & García-Llorente, Marina & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, 2018. "The means determine the end – Pursuing integrated valuation in practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 515-528.
    12. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    13. Farley, Josh & Aquino, André & Daniels, Amy & Moulaert, Azur & Lee, Dan & Krause, Abby, 2010. "Global mechanisms for sustaining and enhancing PES schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2075-2084, September.
    14. Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Artitzar Erauskin-Tolosa & Pedro José Lozano & Itxaro Latasa, 2019. "Individual and Social Preferences in Participatory Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    15. Gowdy, John M. & Mayumi, Kozo, 2001. "Reformulating the foundations of consumer choice theory and environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 223-237, November.
    16. Kolinjivadi, Vijay & Adamowski, Jan & Kosoy, Nicolás, 2014. "Recasting payments for ecosystem services (PES) in water resource management: A novel institutional approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 144-154.
    17. Alessandra Solazzo & Aled Jones & Nigel Cooper, 2015. "Revising Payment for Ecosystem Services in the Light of Stewardship: The Need for a Legal Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-15, November.
    18. Rachelle K. Gould & Austin Himes & Lea May Anderson & Paola Arias Arévalo & Mollie Chapman & Dominic Lenzi & Barbara Muraca & Marc Tadaki, 2024. "Building on Spash's critiques of monetary valuation to suggest ways forward for relational values research," Environmental Values, , vol. 33(2), pages 139-162, April.
    19. Saarikoski, Heli & Aapala, Kaisu & Artell, Janne & Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & Hjerppe, Turo & Lehtoranta, Virpi & Mustajoki, Jyri & Pouta, Eija & Primmer, Eeva & Vatn, Arild, 2022. "Multimethod valuation of peatland ecosystem services: Combining choice experiment, multicriteria decision analysis and deliberative valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    20. Gunton, Richard M. & Hejnowicz, Adam P. & Basden, Andrew & van Asperen, Eline N. & Christie, Ian & Hanson, David R. & Hartley, Sue E., 2022. "Valuing beyond economics: A pluralistic evaluation framework for participatory policymaking," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).

    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:eee:jrpoli:v:69:y:2020:i:c:s0301420720308916. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/30467 .

    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.