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. OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2015, 7 7262

No abstract

In managing the COVID-19 pandemic, several compelling narratives seem to have played a significant role in the decision-making processes regarding which risk mitigation and management measures to implement. Many countries were to a large extent unprepared for such a situation, even though predictions about a significant probability for a pandemic to occur existed, and national governments of several countries often acted in an uncoordinated manner, which resulted in many inconsistencies in the disaster risk reduction processes. Limited evidence has also made room for strategic narratives meant to persuade the public of the chosen set of actions, even though the degree of uncertainty regarding the outcomes of these was high, further complicating the situation. In this article, we assume a normative standpoint regarding rhapsodic decision making and suggest an integrated framework for a more elaborated decision analysis under the ambiguity of how to contain the virus spread from a policy point of view, while considering epidemiologic estimations and socioeconomic factors in a multi-stakeholder-multi-criteria context based on a co-creative work process for eliciting attitudes, perceptions, as well as preferences amongst relevant stakeholder groups. The framework, applied in our paper on Romania for demonstrative purposes, is used for evaluating mitigation measures for catastrophic events such as the COVID-19 situation, to mobilize better response strategies for future scenarios related to pandemics and other hazardous events, as well as to structure the production and analysis of narratives on the current pandemic effects.

In responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, evidence-based policymaking and risk mitigation have been confronted with limited decision-making mechanisms under conditions of increased uncertainty. Such methods are particularly called for in contexts where reliable data to a large extent are missing and where the chosen policy would impact a variety of sectors. In this paper, we present an application of an integrated decision-making framework under ambiguity on how to contain the COVID-19 virus spread from a national policy point of view. The framework was applied in Jordan and considered both local epidemiologic and socioeconomic estimates in a multistakeholder multicriteria context. In particular, the cocreation process for eliciting attitudes, perceptions, and preferences amongst relevant stakeholder groups has often been missing from policy response to the pandemic, even though the containment measures’ efficiency largely depends on their acceptance by the impacted groups. For this, there exist several methods attempting to elicit criteria weights, values, and probabilities ranging from direct rating and point allocation methods to more elaborated ones. To facilitate the elicitation, some of the approaches utilise elicitation methods whereby prospects are ranked using ordinal importance information, while others use cardinal information. Methods are sometimes assessed in case studies or more formally by utilising systematic simulations. Furthermore, the treatment of corresponding methods for the handling of the alternative’s values has sometimes been neglected. We demonstrate in our paper an approach for cardinal ranking in policy decision making in combination with imprecise or incomplete information concerning probabilities, weights, and consequences or alternative values. The results of our cocreation process are aggregated in the evaluation of alternative mitigation measures for Jordan, showcasing how a multistakeholder multicriteria decision mechanism can be employed in current or future challenges of pandemic situations, to facilitate management and mitigation of similar crises in the future, in any region.

In this article, we suggest a group decision method within an integrated computational framework for decision policy. Based on a co-creation workflow, epidemiological estimates, and socioeconomic factors, decisions are considered in a multi-stakeholder, multi-criteria context to elicit attitudes, perceptions, and preferences of relevant stakeholder groups. The complete framework has been applied in Botswana, Romania, and Jordan to assess mitigation actions related to the Covid-19 pandemic in order to mobilize better response strategies for other relevant future scenarios, and potentially more serious pandemics and other hazardous events. The framework was recommended as best practice in the EU under the European Open Science Cloud EOSC, Covid-19 Fast Track Funding.