91 CR 0.02 Since = 0.02 ≤ 0.10, the level of consistency is considered acceptable, indicating that the aggregated expert judgments are sufficiently coherent for deriving the priority weights. 4.4 Output for indicator structuring The weights obtained through AHP allow the integrated socio-environmental risk indicator to be defined as a weighted aggregation of normalized scores for each criterion. Accordingly, the indicator is expressed as: = 1 ∙ 1 + 2 ∙ 2 + 3 ∙ 3 + 4 ∙ 4 + 5 ∙ 5 + 6 ∙ 6 (7) where 1,…, 6 correspond to the normalized scores associated with: 1 → Surface disturbance, 2 → Extreme climate events, 3 → Energy consumption, 4 → Mine-to-water-resources distance, 5 → Mine-to-population-centers distance, and 6 → Distance between water resources and population centers. Substituting the AHP weights: = 0.0984 ∙ 1 + 0.1962 ∙ 2 + 0.2569 ∙ 3 + 0.1270 ∙ 4 + 0.1664 ∙ 5 +0.1551 ∙ 6 (8) where denotes the normalized score of criterion , obtained from the criterion assessment using quantitative and/or qualitative variables. In qualitative cases, is assigned based on a risk-level classification (e.g., low, moderate, and high) and then normalized to a common scale (e.g., 0–1) to enable weighted aggregation within the indicator. 5.- DISCUSSION The AHP preliminary results show a robust and consistent prioritization of the six socioenvironmental criteria assessed, reinforcing the usefulness of the method for making priorities explicit in strategic decisions where heterogeneous dimensions converge. In particular, the dominance of energy consumption (C3) with 25.69% and extreme climate events (C2) with 19.61% suggests that, for the consulted expert panel, long-term socio-environmental assessment is strongly shaped by cross-cutting dimensions that can simultaneously influence environmental performance, costs, and operational continuity. This prioritization is consistent with the recent industry trend toward strengthening commitments to emissions reduction and energy efficiency, as well as with increasing operational uncertainty associated with climate extremes, which can affect environmental performance and risk perception (ICMM, 2019; IGF, 2024). Likewise, in the Chilean context, the relatively strong emphasis on energy and climate aligns with national
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2