Achieving to some outranking relationships between post mining land uses through mined land suitability analysis

Abstract

ABSTRACT:Adoption of most suitable post mining land use is a problem with multi-dimensional nature. There are so many factors in this problem which seriously influence on the decision judgments. Therefore, in this study a fiftyattribute framework for mined land suitability analysis including fifty numbers of economical, social, technical and mine site factors developed to be a foundation for this decision making problem. Analysis by an outranking multiattribute decision-making technique, called elimination et choix traduisant la realite method, was taken into consideration because of its clear advantages on the field of mined land suitability analysis as compared with multi-attribute decisionmaking ranking techniques. Analytical hierarchy process method applied to calculate global weights of the attributes through pair wise comparison matrixes. The weights then passed to the elimination et choix traduisant la realit method so that the most efficient post mining land uses could be appointed through comparisons of pair-wise dominance relationships between alternatives. This approach applied to an illustrative example where, final results showed that, there were two non-dominated land-uses for the considered example; industrial and pasture. However by increasing indifference threshold limit, the non-dominated set reduced to a single alternative that was pasture land-use. Key words: Disturbed land, multi-attribute decision-making, analytical hierarchy process, elimination et choix traduisant la realit INTRODUCTIONIn this paper, a mined land suitability analysis (MLSA) framework containing fifty numbers of leading evaluation attributes and also eight possible groups of post mining land uses for a mined land is provided by reviewing and surveying reclamation practice reports of mines, disturbed lands and many other similar cases. For example, Coppin and Bradshaw, 1982; Chen, et al., 1998;Howat, 2000;Tafi et al., 2006;Carrick and Kruger (2007) have evaluated the factors limiting plant growth on mined soils and mentioned the most serious soil limitations. Some other researchers e.g. Hindle and Grosskopf, 2000;Messing and Hoang, 2001;Hill, 2003;Gizikoff, 2004;Mu (2006) have investigated so many other factors such as topography, climate, environment, society, economy, etc. which arise in land use evaluations of mined or other disturbed lands. Besides, Cairns,1972; Alexander,1998;Errington, 2001;Paschke, et al., 2003; Stellin, et al., 2005;Cao (2007); have focused on special post mining land uses that were exercised in some mine sites. In the proposed MLSA framework, evaluation attributes is categorized into four criteria groups; economical, social, technical, and mine site factors. Each criteria group in turn extends to lower levels consisted of the fifty attributes in a protracted hierarchical structure.In the last few years, analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method which is a multi-attribute decisionmaking (MADM) technique has been addressed more or less in literature on the field of MLSA process (Uberman and Ostrêga...

Evaluation of Combating Desertification Alternatives Using Promethee Model

“…In addition, PROMETHEE method can use criteria with different scales without needing to match the criteria scales and it defines the distinct six functions commensurate by criteria scale and information, so it is a strong point for determinant in Multiple Attribute Decision Making that usually criteria are measured with different scales. Also when assessing alternatives are not identical, for example one alternative has better function for a special criteria and the other alternative for another criteria, like this study, the use of PROMETHEE is useful like other Multi-criteria methods such as ELECTERA (Soltanmohammad et al, 2008). PROMETHEE disadvantage is that there is no approach for weighting criteria and it is assigned to the determinant (Macharis et al, 2007).…”

ELECTRE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications

“…Assessing regional earthquake vulnerabilities EIII P TPS, VKR, PRM II, GRA, WSM, SRC Salvi et al (2005) Ranking accident scenarios related to urbanization around high-risk sites EIII P GIS Sebos et al (2010) Land use planning for areas adjacent to high-risk sites ETRI P GIS Soltanmohammadi et al (2008) Comparing a number of post mining land uses EI P AHP, TPS Stecchi et al (2012) Producing a ground deformation vulnerability map ETRI P GIS Taillandier and Taillandier (2012) Cartographic generalization for building blocks ETRI P van Delft and Nijkamp (1976) Selecting a planning strategy for a new industrial area EI NCD Selecting a forest planning strategy EIII ME AHP, MAUT, PRM II Same as in EIII ME AHP, MAVT, PRM II Ok (2006) Choosing an ecotourism activity EI P Choosing an ecotourism activity EI, EIII P, P AHP Comparing silvicultural scenarios for larch stands EIII P Rosato and Stellin (1993) Selecting an agricultural management scheme in EI P WAM…”

Electre Methods in Solving Group Decision Support System Bioinformatics on Gene Mutation Detection Simulation

“…In order to detect whether a person is identified to have cancer cells or not. The data were collected from the study of gene mutations [6] (Prayitno,A. 2005) In this simulation, it can be applied to the three alternatives in the set to the identification of cancer cells in the human gene, namely: The calculation is done with the completion method Elimination Et Choix Traduisant He realite (ELECTRE), which is based on the concept of ranking by paired comparisons between alternatives on the appropriate criteria.…”