Current multi-criteria decision-making methods (MCDM) present valid alternatives for weighting the various criteria while allowing for the participation of different stakeholders. Among those, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) structures the decision problem in a manner that is easy for the stakeholders to comprehend and allows them to analyze independent sub-problems by structuring the problem in a hierarchy and using pairwise comparisons. This paper presents the application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process to weight the different criteria to measure the sustainability of surface mining operations. Prior to the application of the AHP method, the various criteria were preselected using a preliminary selection method consisting of the identification of criteria from six different sources: governmental regulations; committees and organizations for standardization; management and processes best practices; academically- and scientifically-authored resources; local, regional, national, and international organizations; and industry sector standards and programs. Criteria with different common sources of origin, as well as discretionary project and stakeholder relevance were chosen for the preselected list. The different social, economic, and environmental criteria were classified in ten different areas of excellence to facilitate the application of the weighting method. Therefore, each criterionâ€™s final weight is impacted by the criterionâ€™s weight itself and the area of excellenceâ€™s weight obtained in the application of the AHP method. The results of the weighting process assist scientists and practitioners by Â not only identifying those criteria that stakeholders consider relevant in the sustainability assessment process, but also by expressing the degree to which the criteria should be addressed in order to accomplish the projectâ€™s and/or organizationâ€™s sustainability goals.
sustainability, sustainable development indicators (SDIs), analytical hierarchy process (AHP), multi-criteria decision-making methods (MCDM), surface mining operations
evaluation: An example using the analytical hierarchy process. Biological Conservation,
Bahurmoz, A. (2003). The analytic hierarchy process at Dar Al-Hekmah, Saudi Arabia.
Interfaces, 33(4), 70-78.
BanaeCosta, C.A, & Chagas, M.P. (2004). Career choice problem: an example of how to
use Macbeth to build a quantitative value model based on qualitative value judgments.
European Journal of Operational Research, 153(2), 323-331.
Beuthe, M., & Scannella, G. (2001). Comparative analysis of UTA multicriteria methods.
European Journal of Operational Research, 130(2), 246-262.
Bouyssou, D., Marchant, T., Pirlot, M., Tsoukias, A., & Vincke, P. (2006). Evaluation
and decision models with multiple criteria: Stepping stones for the analyst. Boston:
Brans, J., & Mareschal, B. (1994). The PROMCALC & GAIA decision support system
for multicriteria decision aid. Decision Support System, 12, 297-310.
Figueira, J.R., Greco, S., & Ehrgott, M. (2005). Multiple criteria decision analysis: State
of the art surveys. Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Figueira, J.R., Greco, S., Roy, B., & Slowinski, R. (2010). ELECTRE methods: Main
features and recent developments. In: Zopounidis, C. & Parpalos, P. (eds). Handbook of
multicriteria analysis. Chapter 3, 51-89. New York: Springer.
Gasparatos, A., El-Haram, M., & Horner, M. (2008). A critical review of reductionist
approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability. Env. Imp. Asses, 28(4/5),
Gibson, R. B., Hassan, S., Holtz, S., Tansey, J., & Whitelaw, G. (2010). Sustainability
assessment: Criteria and processes. London, UK: Earthscan.
Harger, J.R.E., & Meyer, F.M. (1996). Definition of indicators for environmentally
sustainable development. Chemosphere, 33(9), 1749-1175.
Hart, M. (1999). Guide to sustainable community indicators. North Andover, MA: Hart
IISD (International Institute of Sustainable Development). (2012). Standards-CSR
Guidance. Retrieved March 23, 2012, from http://iisd.org/standards/csr.asp.
Issa, M.H., Rankin, J.H., & Christian, A.J. (2009). A methodology to assess the costs and
financial benefits of green buildings from an industry perspective. Proceedings of the
Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Montreal, QC, 2, 1111-1120.
Keeney, R.L., & Raiffa, H. (1993) Decisions with multiple objectives, preferences and
value tradeoffs. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Munda, G. (2006). A NAIADE based approach for sustainability benchmarking. Int. J. of
Environmental Technology and Management, 6(1/2), 65-78.
Munda, G., & Nardo, M. (2005). Constructing consistent composite indicators: The issue
of weights. Luxembourg: European Communities.
Neumayer, E. (2003). Weak versus strong sustainability: Exploring the limits of two
opposing paradigms. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Poveda, C., & Lipsett, M. (2011a). A review of sustainability assessment and
sustainability/environmental rating system and credit weighting tools. Journal of
Sustainable Development, 4(6), 36-55.
Poveda, C., & Lipsett, M. (2011b). A rating system for sustainability of industrial
projects with application in oil sands and heavy oil projects: Areas of excellence, subdivisions,
and management interaction. Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(4), 3-21.
Poveda, C., & Lipsett, M. (2013a). Using sustainable development indicators (SDIs) for
sustainability assessment of surface mining operations in the oil sands projects:
Applicability, usefulness and costs. Energy and Sustainability 2013 Conference
Proceedings, Bucharest, Romania, 55-67.
Poveda, C., & Lipsett, M. (2013b). Design of performance improvement factors (PIFs)
for sustainable development indicators (SDIs) metrics for oil sands projects with
application to surface mining operations based on continual performance improvement
(CPI). Journal of Sustainable Development, 6(8), 52-70.
Roy, B. (1996). Multicriteria methodology for decision aiding. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Saaty, T. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of
Mathematical Psychology, 15, 234-81.
Saaty, T. (1980). The analytical hierarchy process. New York: McGraw Hill.
Saaty, T. (1982). Decision making for leaders. Belmont: Lifetime Learning Publications.
Saaty, T. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European
Journal of Operations Research, 48, 9-26.
Saaty, T. (1994). Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the
analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 74, 426-447.
Saaty, T. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Services
Science, 1(1), 83-98.
Taylor, A. (2006). Sustainability indicator frameworks in Alberta: Setting the context and
identifying opportunities. Drayton Valley, Canada: The Pembina Institute.
Trusty, W. (2008). Standards versus recommended practice: Separating process and
prescriptive measures from building performance. Journal of ASTM International, 5(2).
United Nations (UN). (2007). Indicators of sustainable development: Guidelines and
methodologies. Retrieved April 12, 2012, from
Vansnick, J. (1986). On the problem of weights in multiple criteria decision making (the
noncompensatory approach). European Journal of Operational Research, 24, 288-294.
Vassilev, V., Genova, K., & Vassileva, M. (2005). A brief survey of multicriteria
decision making methods and software systems. Cybernetics and Information
VonWinterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research.
London: Cambridge University Press.
Yudelson, J. (2008). The green building revolution. Washington, D.C: Island Press
Copyright of all articles published in IJAHP is transferred to Creative Decisions Foundation (CDF). However, the author(s) reserve the following:
- All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
- The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain permission from CDF as well. However, CDF may grant rights with respect to journal issues as a whole.
- The right to use all or parts of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, textbooks, or reprint books.
- The authors affirm that the article has been neither copyrighted nor published, that it is not being submitted for publication elsewhere, and that if the work is officially sponsored, it has been released for open publication.
The only exception to the statements in the paragraph above is the following: If an article published in IJAHP contains copyrighted material, such as a teaching case, as an appendix, then the copyright (and all commercial rights) of such material remains with the original copyright holder.
CDF will receive permission for publication of copyrighted material in IJAHP. This permission is not transferable to third parties. Permission to make electronic and paper copies of part or all of the articles, including all computer files that are linked to the articles, for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage.
This permission does not apply to previously copyrighted material, such as teaching cases. In paper copies of the article, the copyright notice and the title of the publication and its date should be visible. To copy otherwise is permitted provided that a per-copy fee is paid.
To republish, to post on servers, or redistribute to lists requires that you post a link to the IJAHP article, which is available in open access delivery mode. Do not upload the article itself.
Authors are permitted to present a talk, based on a paper submitted to or accepted by IJAHP, at a conference where the paper would not be published in a copyrighted publication either before or after the conference and where the author did not assign copyright to the conference or related publisher.