4.6 Article

Evaluation of Cleaner Production for Gold Mines Employing a Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su11010146

关键词

cleaner production (CP); extended Tomada de Decisao Interativa Multicriterio (TODIM); probabilistic linguistic term sets (PLTSs); hybrid multi-criteria decision making (MCDM); gold mines

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFC0604606]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51774321]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Implementing cleaner production (CP) is effective to resolve the contradiction between economic growth and environmental crisis. To avoid destroying the ecological environment in the exploitation process of mineral resources, CP has been developed in many gold mines to achieve the goal of sustainable development. Thus, this paper aims to propose a favorable approach to assess CP for gold mines. First, according to the specific characteristics of gold mines, an evaluation criteria system of CP is established. Meanwhile, considering the diversity of evaluation information, crisp numbers and probabilistic linguistic term sets (PLTSs) are adopted to indicate the quantitative and qualitative information, respectively. Subsequently, a modified experts grading method based on PLTSs is proposed to calculate the sub-criteria weights' values. Following this, an extended Tomada de Decisao Interativa Multicriterio (TODIM) method with hybrid evaluation values is presented to obtain the ranking order. Finally, the hybrid multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach is applied to a case of assessing CP for gold mines to demonstrate its feasibility. Furthermore, the robustness and advantages of this approach are justified by sensitivity and comparison analyses. The results show that the proposed approach is feasible to solve such kinds of evaluation problems with hybrid decision making information and can provide some managerial suggestions for government and enterprises.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据