4.6 Article

Green Mining Strategy Selection via an Integrated SWOT-PEST Analysis and Fuzzy AHP-MARCOS Approach

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 14, Issue 13, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su14137577

Keywords

green mining; development strategy; SWOT-PEST analysis; fuzzy AHP; fuzzy MARCOS

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFC0604606]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This research introduces a novel integrated decision support model for the mining industry to analyze environmental factors and determine development strategies. The model applies SWOT analysis and PEST analysis to evaluate internal and external factors influencing green mining. The study concludes that grasping the trend of green development and improving the protection and exploitation of mineral resources is the optimal strategy.
Deciding on an appropriate development strategy is one of the most crucial aspects of the mining industry's green transition. This research introduces a novel integrated decision support model that can be applied to analyze various environmental factors and determine development strategies. In this study, a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis is employed from multiple perspectives, including political, economic, social, and technological (PEST), to assess the internal and external factors that influence green mining. The fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to analyze the factor weights quantitatively, and the fuzzy Measurement of Alternatives and Ranking according to Compromise Solution (MARCOS) method is used to rank and select development strategies. According to the results, grasp the trend of green development and improve the protection and exploitation level of mineral resources is found to be the final optimal strategy. Comparative analysis and sensitivity analysis confirmed the accuracy of the model and the case study results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available