## 4 Conclusions
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Alternative Sites**}} & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**Criteria of Sectors**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(d^{\star}\)} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-10}  & **C1** & **C2** & **C3** & **C4** & **C5** & **C6** & **C7** & **C8** \\ \hline A1 (Beach area) & 0.98 & 0.90 & 0.90 & 0.90 & 0.92 & 0.93 & 0.97 & 0.97 & 7.47 \\ A2 (Protected forest area) & 0.97 & 0.95 & 0.96 & 0.97 & 0.93 & 0.90 & 0.97 & 0.98 & 7.62 \\ A3 (Agricultural area) & 0.90 & 0.94 & 0.96 & 0.95 & 0.96 & 0.96 & 0.95 & 0.97 & 7.58 \\ A4 (Settlement area) & 0.95 & 0.98 & 0.97 & 0.96 & 0.96 & 0.95 & 0.90 & 0.95 & 7.60 \\ A5 (Industrial area) & 0.98 & 0.98 & 0.94 & 0.95 & 0.97 & 0.96 & 0.93 & 0.91 & 7.61 \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{**(b) Separation from Negative Ideal Solution (\(d^{\star}\))**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Alternative Sites**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**C1**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**C2**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**C3**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**C4**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**C5**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**C6**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**C7**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**C8**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-10}  & **C1** & & & & & & & & \\ \hline A1 (Beach area) & 0.03 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 0.09 & 0.08 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.56 \\ A2 (Protected forest area) & 0.04 & 0.06 & 0.05 & 0.03 & 0.07 & 0.10 & 0.04 & 0.03 & 0.42 \\ A3 (Agricultural area) & 0.10 & 0.07 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 0.04 & 0.46 \\ A4 (Settlement area) & 0.05 & 0.03 & 0.04 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 0.06 & 0.10 & 0.06 & 0.44 \\ A5 (Industrial area) & 0.03 & 0.03 & 0.06 & 0.05 & 0.04 & 0.05 & 0.07 & 0.10 & 0.43 \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{Where: C1 = Agriculture; C2 = Aquaculture; C3 = Fishing; C4 = Salt production; C5 = Tourism; C6 = Forestry; C7 = Settlement; C8 = Industry; Closeness coefficient (CC); CC\({}_{(A1)}\) = 0.0703; CC\({}_{(A2)}\) = 0.0521; CC\({}_{(A3)}\) = 0.0575; CC\({}_{(A4)}\) = 0.0549; CC\({}_{(A5)}\) = 0.0534; Final ranking of alternatives: Level 1 (A1); level 2 (A3); level 3 (A4); level 4 (A5); level 5 (A2).} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Final ranking alternatives. biodiversity, environmental air quality, forestry, fresh water, and land resources. Environmental conflicts raise in Ky Khang and in the Vung Ang EZ because of the limited land areas and freshwater resources. Surface water is salinized by the mine activities and useless for agri- and aquaculture. Air is polluted by smoke, toxic gases and dust from the mining activities and electricity generation. While agriculture, forestry, aquaculture, salt production, tourism, heritage preservation, and human health all are affected by titan mining, the couple of conflicts titan mining--forestry should be considered most carefully in the study area. Managing environmental conflicts pertains to the available tools and approaches, and recommendations arising from these study results provide a scientific basis for policy-makers to mitigate the negative impacts of the conflicts. Since environmental conflicts dovetail in political, economic, social and ecological contexts, their management should focus on integrated measures [47; 48]. Environmental impact assessments (EIA) and strategic environmental assessments (SEA) are important legal and procedural tools to manage the environment, in particular with regard to the current and intended development [49; 50]. Moreover, integrated coastal zone management (ICZM), marine spatial planning (MSP), and multi-planning integration advancing coastal zone management are favorable to titan mines along coasts. In reality, there is lack of planning for natural resource use in the Central Coast Vietnam [35; 51]. Consequently, resources in this area are depleted and risks of conflicts between economic groups using these natural resources are common. Over-all, conflicts will likely become more severe and serious as long as resources decline both in quality and quantity and environmental pollution increases.