IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v7y2015i6p7261-7288d50750.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A MCDM Analysis of the Roşia Montană Gold Mining Project

Author

Listed:
  • Adriana Mihai

    (MRC—Median Research Centre, Ion Călin 3, Sector 2, Bucharest 020531, Romania)

  • Adina Marincea

    (MRC—Median Research Centre, Ion Călin 3, Sector 2, Bucharest 020531, Romania)

  • Love Ekenberg

    (International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, IIASA, Schlossplatz 1, Laxenburg A-2361, Austria
    Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, Forum 100, Kista SE-164 40, Sweden)

Abstract

The need and estimated utility for a structured analysis of the Roşia Montană gold exploitation project have been palpable in the Romanian public sphere during the last 15 years and there is a vast amount of conflicting information and opinions on the benefits and risks involved. This article provides a comprehensive decision analysis of the Roşia Montană project. Over 100 documents from the past years have been gathered regarding the Roşia Montană mining project, which cover the main official, formal and less formal documents covering the case and produced by a wide range of stakeholders. These were then analyzed while designing a multi-criteria tree including the relevant perspectives under which the most commonly discussed four alternatives were analyzed. The result of this can be translated into a valuable recommendation for the mining company and for the political decision-makers. If these stakeholders want the continuation of the project and its acceptance by civil society, the key challenge is to increase the transparency of the process and improve the credibility and legal aspects; if these aspects cannot be met, the decision-makers need to pay attention to the alternatives available for a sustainable development in the area.

Suggested Citation

  • Adriana Mihai & Adina Marincea & Love Ekenberg, 2015. "A MCDM Analysis of the Roşia Montană Gold Mining Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-28, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:6:p:7261-7288:d:50750
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/6/7261/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/6/7261/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Danielson, Mats & Ekenberg, Love, 2007. "Computing upper and lower bounds in interval decision trees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(2), pages 808-816, September.
    2. Danielson, Mats, 2005. "Generalized evaluation in decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(2), pages 442-449, April.
    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. Colin Williams & Liping Fang, 2019. "A Value-Focused Multiple Participant-Multiple Criteria (MPMC) Decision Support Approach for Public Policy Formulation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 99-126, February.
    2. Ştefănescu, Lucrina & Alexandrescu, Filip, 2020. "Environmental protection or subversion in mining? Planning challenges, perspectives and actors at the largest gold deposit in Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).

    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. Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg & Jim Idefeldt & Aron Larsson, 2007. "Using a Software Tool for Public Decision Analysis: The Case of Nacka Municipality," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(2), pages 76-90, June.
    2. Karin Hansson & Aron Larsson & Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2011. "Coping with Complex Environmental and Societal Flood Risk Management Decisions: An Integrated Multi-criteria Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(9), pages 1-24, August.
    3. Buchholz, Thomas & Rametsteiner, Ewald & Volk, Timothy A. & Luzadis, Valerie A., 2009. "Multi Criteria Analysis for bioenergy systems assessments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 484-495, February.
    4. Sarat Sivaprasad & Cameron A. MacKenzie, 2018. "The Hurwicz Decision Rule’s Relationship to Decision Making with the Triangle and Beta Distributions and Exponential Utility," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 139-153, September.
    5. Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2017. "A Robustness Study of State-of-the-Art Surrogate Weights for MCDM," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 677-691, July.
    6. Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2016. "The CAR Method for Using Preference Strength in Multi-criteria Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 775-797, July.
    7. Nadejda Komendantova & Leena Marashdeh & Love Ekenberg & Mats Danielson & Franziska Dettner & Simon Hilpert & Clemens Wingenbach & Kholoud Hassouneh & Ahmed Al-Salaymeh, 2020. "Water–Energy Nexus: Addressing Stakeholder Preferences in Jordan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-16, July.
    8. Björkqvist, Olof & Idefeldt, Jim & Larsson, Aron, 2010. "Risk assessment of new pricing strategies in the district heating market: A case study at Sundsvall Energi AB," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2171-2178, May.
    9. J. D’Haen & D. Van Den Poel, 2013. "Model-supported business-to-business prospect prediction based on an iterative customer acquisition framework," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 13/863, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    10. Danielson, Mats & Ekenberg, Love, 2007. "Computing upper and lower bounds in interval decision trees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(2), pages 808-816, September.
    11. Guo, Peijun & Tanaka, Hideo, 2010. "Decision making with interval probabilities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(2), pages 444-454, June.
    12. Ahn, Byeong Seok & Park, Haechurl, 2014. "Establishing dominance between strategies with interval judgments of state probabilities," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 53-59.
    13. Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg & Ying He, 2014. "Augmenting Ordinal Methods of Attribute Weight Approximation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 11(1), pages 21-26, March.
    14. Marco Araújo & Love Ekenberg & Mats Danielson & João Confraria, 2022. "A Multi-Criteria Approach to Decision Making in Broadband Technology Selection," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 387-418, April.
    15. Adiel T. Almeida-Filho & Adiel T. Almeida & Ana Paula C. S. Costa, 2017. "A flexible elicitation procedure for additive model scale constants," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 259(1), pages 65-83, December.

    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:7:y:2015:i:6:p:7261-7288:d:50750. 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.