Accepted Manuscript

Mine closure risk management: an integration of 3D risk model and MCDM

techniques

Sina Amirshenava, morteza Osanloo

PII: S0959-6526(18)30208-7

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.186

Reference: JCLP 11866

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 08 August 2017

Revised Date: 21 January 2018

Accepted Date: 22 January 2018

Please cite this article as: Sina Amirshenava, morteza Osanloo, Mine closure risk management: an
integration of 3D risk model and MCDM techniques, Journal of Cleaner Production (2018), doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.186

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Manuscript Number: JCLEPRO-D-17-05483

Author group with affiliations

Order of Authors Name and Family Affiliation E-mail Address
name

First Author Sina Amirshenava Department of Mining sina.amirshanava@gmail.com

and Metallurgical
Engineering, Amirkabir
University of Technology,
Tehran, Iran

Second Author Morteza Osanloo Department of Mining morteza.osanloo@gmail.com

and Metallurgical
(Corresponding Author) Engineering, Amirkabir
University of Technology,
PO Box: 15875-4413,
424, Hafez Ave., Tehran,
Iran
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Mine closure risk management

Hybrid MCDM
approach
Risk treatment

Mine closure risks

Optimal post-mining land-use selection

PT
RI
SC
Risk assessment

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Mine closure risk management: an integration of 3D risk model and MCDM

techniques

Abstract

Mine life is limited to mineable reserve, but economic, social and environmental factors can
make mine life shorter than what is expected. Mine closure is associated with adverse on-site and
off-site impacts such as unemployment, the loss of community services and pollution which
threaten achieving the sustainable development goals. Therefore, mine closure risk management
is necessary for reducing the negative effects. The present study aimed to develop a generic
procedure for mine closure risk management. To this end, a three dimensional (3D) risk model
was developed for assessing mine closure risks. The 3D risk model can fix the deficiency of 2D
risk model by considering the time value of risk. Mine reclamation is a risk treatment option
which requires the selection of optimal Post-Mining Land-Use (PMLU). The optimal PMLU
depends on the risks identified by the 3D risk model. In addition, a hybrid approach involving
three Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods was developed for optimal PMLU
selection. Twenty six different criteria including six economic, four technical, three landscape
and environmental, seven social and six mine site factors were proposed. Finally, the proposed
risk management approach was implemented in Choghart iron ore mine of Iran. The results
indicated that the identified events had a 51.4% low, 22.9% medium, 14.3% high and 11.4%
extreme risk levels and accordingly revegetation with native species was recommended as the
optimal PMLU. Compared with the 2D risk model, the assessment results are more effective and
practical by adding the time value of risk which can help budget planning for risk treatment.

Keywords: Mine closure, Sustainable development, Risk management, 3D risk model, Mine
reclamation, Multi-criteria decision making

1. Introduction

The modern mining life-cycle is divided into three main stages, namely precursors to mining
(prospecting and exploration), mining (development and exploitation) and post-mining (mine
closure and reclamation). Nowadays, post-mining stage is regarded as the most important for
keeping mining activities in line with the principles of the Sustainable Development (SD).
(Hartman and Mutmansky, 2002; Laurence, 2011; Eggart, 2015; Rahmanpour and Osanloo,
2017). Mine closure refers to the period of time when the operational stage of mine and
processing plant is permanently stopped (Heikkinen et al., 2008). Mine closure may be planned
due to ore reserve depletion or unplanned due to some other reasons, called "premature closure".
Basded on the results of some studies, a small percentage of closures in the world is planned and

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

in most of the cases, the mines are closed mainly due to economic, environmental and social
factors (Laurence 2011; Ghanbari et al, 2010; Minaei Mobtaker and Osanloo, 2013).
Mine closure is related to reverse on-site and off-site effects such as health and safety
problems, unemployment, the loss of community services and facilities, water, air and topsoil
pollution, catastrophic subsidence, as well as abandoned and unreclaimed mine sites (Laurence,
2001; Fourie and Brent, 2006; Stacey et al., 2010; Kowalaska, 2014; Unger et al., 2015;
Krzemień et al., 2016; Venkateswarlu, 2016). Each of these negative effects can be regarded as a
potential cause of mine closure risks which threatens accessing to SD objectives. Therefore,
mine closure issues should be managed in a risk management process in order to modify the
negative effects (Laurence, 2006; Eggart, 2015; Krzemień et al., 2016; Espinoza and Morris,
2017). Risk management is a comprehensive process for analyzing and evaluating the identified
risks and managing the events or issues which are identified as higher risks (ISO 31000, 2009).
Risk management process includes risk assessment and risk treatment.
A correct mine reclamation plan is responsible for modifying mine closure problems and
creating a new economic opportunity by providing the context for deploying the post-mining
land-use (PMLU) which is different from the pre-mining land-use. Therefore, mine reclamation
is a good treatment action for managing the mine closure risks (Osanloo, 2017; Winde and
Stoch, 2010; Mborah, 2016; kodire et al., 2017). The optimal PMLU alternative is selected in
such a way that it can result in modifying mine closure risk in addition to fulfilling the regional
conditions and the needs of community (Mborah, 2016). Multi-Criteria Decision Making
(MCDM) methods are regarded as the best tool for solving this problem (Zimmerman, 2016). A
large number of researchers implemented decision-making methods in order to select PMLU
(Bascetin, 2007; Soltanmohammadi et al., 2008a, 2008b, 2009; Narrei and Osanloo, 2011; Betrie
et al., 2013; Dimitrijevic et al., 2014; Yavuz and Altay, 2015; Zimmerman, 2016; Shenavar and
Osanloo, 2016). Using at least two methods and comparing their results can obtain more accurate
outcomes due to the advantages and disadvantages of MCDM methods (Narrei and Osanloo,
2011).
A large number of risk assessment methods are available, among which two-dimensional (2D)
risk model is the most used method in the field of the mine closure risk assessment (Laurence,
2001, 2006; Gheisari et al, 2014; Hasheela et al., 2014; Valenzuela et al., 2014; Taveira and
Sánchez, 2016). This semi-quantitative method is responsible for calculating the magnitude of
risk by quantifying the probability and consequences of each potential event (Ristić, 2013). In
spite of the simplicity, intelligibility, usefulness and user-friendliness of 2D risk model, this
method fails to consider the time value of risk (Zhang et al., 2016; Kinney and Wiruth, 1976). So
far, no study, to the best of our knowledge, has addressed the time value of risk although it is
regarded as the main attribute of risk for determining the frequency of occurring potential event
regarding mine closure risk assessment. Fine (1971) introduced time factor as the third attribute
of risk in the risk assessment process, which was implemented by some researchers (Kinney and
Wiruth, 1976; RMO, 2004; Marhavilas and Koulouriotis, 2008; Ruiz Chaparro, 2014). The 3D

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

risk assessment model designed by the University of Melbourne Risk Management Office
(RMO, 2004) is one of the newest and comprehensive studies in this field. However, this model
is suffering from obscurity in classifying risk scores and failure to provide a 3D graphical model
for easy calculations.
A 3D mine closure risk management approach was developed in the present study. Supposing
that mine reclamation is a risk measure, the optimal PMLU is selected for responding to critical
risks. In this regard, a hybrid MCDM approach was developed based on the Analytical Hierarchy
Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1980), Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment
Evaluation (PROMETHEE) (Brans et al, 1986) and Technique for Order of Preference by
Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) (Hwang and Yoon, 1981) methods.
The second section introduces the procedure of the proposed mine closure risk management
approach. Then, the proposed approach is verified in Coghart iron ore mine of Iran. Finally, the
results are reported and discussed.

2. Methodology
The present study seeks to manage the mine closure risks in order to mitigate or avoid
damaging the society and environment. To this end, a mine closure risk management approach
was developed. As shown in Fig. 1, risk management procedure is performed in three steps such
as establishing the context, risk assessment and risk treatment.

2.1. Establishing the context

Risk context defines the purpose of risk management, limitations, basic parameters and finally
sets the framework and scope for this process (Aven and Vinnem, 2007). The addressed risks are
related to adverse events with regard to mine closure. The basic parameters for quantification
include the likelihood, consequences and the exposure to risk. Considering the finite and
unavailable historical data related to mines which are safely closed or unplannedly and
prematurely closed, the present study is highly related to the procedure for data collection.
2.2. Risk assessment

As shown in Fig.1, risk assessment process is conducted based on three steps. The first step is
related to risk identification which aimed to determine a complete list of events and their
possible consequences. Mine closure risks are defined by using questionnaires filled by an expert
team about the negative effects of mine closure based on their experience and observations from
the mining region. It is worth noting that some of these risk items were extracted from the
previous studies (Laurence, 2001, 2006; Heikkinen et al., 2008; Stacey et al., 2010; Valenzuela,
2014; Kowalska, 2014; Unger et al., 2015). As displayed in Table 1, mine closure risk types are
categorized into five groups and each is divided into sub-categories. The risk categorization is
based on the Laurence’s study (Laurence, 2006) which is regarded as one of the main and most
cited research in the context of mine closure. Howerver, the main difference is related to

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

“PMLU”. Laurence emphasizes PMLU as a risk source while it was considered as a risk measure
in the present study.

Establishing the context

Define the objectives
Determine the basic parameters
Specify scope & framework
Determine the limitations
Communication and consultation with stakeholders

Risk identification
What can happen?
Sources of risks

Monitoring and review

Potential consequences
Risk assessment

Risk analysis
Determine likelihood
Determine consequence
Determine exposure to risk
Estimate risk level

Risk evaluation
Determine critical risks
Define treatment priorities
3D risk model

Risk treatment
Response planning to risks
Mine reclamation planning
Identify PMLU alternatives
Determine the optimal PMLU

Fig. 1. The framework of the mine closure risk management approach

Table 1. Classification of mine closure risks

Risk type Risk Code Specific event Explanation
Technical Mine closure plan Failure to prepare a mine closure plan from
TR1
the beginning of the mine’s life
Reclamation progress Low progress in mine reclamation gradual
TR2 activities (e.g., recontouring, topsoiling, etc.)
Closure activities entail a group of highly
TR3 Lack of a professional team for mine knowledged persons in the fields of mining,
closure environment, sociology and economics. In
some cases, lack of such persons may impose
risks to the project.

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1. Classification of mine closure risks (Continued)

Risk type Risk Code Specific event Explanation
Health and HR1 Falling into the pit Injuries due to falling of equipment, person or animal
Safety into the pit
HR2 Unexploded blast hole The possibility of unexpected blasting of previously
charged blast hole
HR3 Pit slope failure Safety problems caused by pit slope failure
HR4 Waste dump failure Waste dump failure and causing safety problems
HR5 Tailings dam failure Slope failure caused by hydric erosion or an earthquake
and creating problems for residents around the mine
(e.g., damage to homes and agricultural lands, etc.)
HR6 Toxic gases Respiratory diseases due to toxic gases emission
HR7 Toxic elements Diseases caused by releasing toxic elements to the
surrounding water resources
Environmental ER1 Existence of suspended particles Contamination of water caused by suspended particles
in water such as the pb, zn, Cd, As and Hg.
ER2 Mine effluent Contamination of water caused by mine effluent
ER3 Acid drainage Contamination of water caused by seepage of acid
drainage
ER4 Decreasing the water level Decline in groundwater level caused by unconventional
harvesting of water resources for mining purposes
(extraction, processing, etc.)
ER5 Use of downstream water flowing Limited and contaminated downstream water flow due
to mining activities impacts on upstream water flow
ER6 Greenhouse gases Air pollution and climate change due to greenhouse
gases emission
ER7 Dust Air pollution caused by particulate material suspended
by the wind
ER8 Aesthetic values Dissatisfaction with the unpleasant landscape caused
by mining activities
ER9 Soil contamination Destruction of soil fertility due to pollution from heavy
metals
ER10 Mine pit reshaping Problems arising from the reshaping of the mine pit
(e.g., inappropriate appearance, water drainage
problems, topography problems, creating a sanctuary
for wild animals, etc.)
ER11 Waste dump reshaping Problems arising from the final shaping of the waste
dump (e.g., slope stability problems, drainage
problems, topographic problems)
ER12 Overflowing of tailings dam Overflowing of tailings dam caused by intense
precipitation and/or flood (occurrence of environmental
pollutions)

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1. Classification of mine closure risks (Continued)

Risk type Risk Code Specific event Explanation

Community CR1 Workers compensation claims Problems due to worker’s claims in terms of law
changes or lack of law (e.g., problems of workers
insurance and long-term labor contracts, etc.)
CR2 Increase in crime Increase in crime caused by mental issues
CR3 Hostility of natives with mine owners Natives dissatisfaction due to lack of fair
distribution of wealth in the community
(sometimes natives think that the mine owners
have plundered the resources without creating
any infrastructure and development in the region)
CR4 Damage to the business of residents Decline business boom (that types of business
around the mine which are directly or indirectly related to mining
operation)
CR5 Impact on residential property value Reduce the value of residential property
CR6 Impact on life style Negative effects on life style mainly because of
unemployment
CR7 Impact on a wide area around the mine Negative effects beyond the native and regional
(in the more remote areas from mine site)
CR8 Impact on the country’s situation Negative effects on country’s situation
(especially in relation to large scale and strategic
mines)
Law and LR1 Financial risk of employees Problems caused by employees financial issues
Financial (e.g., unpaid wages, etc.)
LR2 Financial risk of contractors Problems caused by the financial debts to the
contractors (failure to pay the cost of the
completed projects)
LR3 Businesses risks Problems caused by the financial debts to the
commercial companies
LR4 Financial risk of government Problems due to unpaid taxes and royalties
LR5 Financial provision for mine Failure to finance the reclamation activities
reclamation during mining operations or inaccurately
estimation of reclamation cost

Risk analysis is the second step in which the magnitude of risk is calculated and accordingly
the level of risk is determined. Finally, in risk evaluation step, the results of risk analysis process
are evaluated to specify unacceptable risks and simplify decisions on the treatment. The
treatment priorities are determined based on the results. All the aforementioned steps rely on the
type of the risk assessment method.
Among the three general categories used for risk assessment techniques, a semi-quantitative
method is prioritized as qualitative methods are not accurate and quantitative ones are complex
(Marhavilas and Koulouriotis, 2008). Based on these methods, descriptive numbers are assigned
to the level of likelihood, consequences and other attributes of risk and finally the related risk is
ranked based on the assigned risk level (LPSDP, 2016). The 2D risk model as the most used

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

semi-quantitative method for assessing the mine closure risks is limited due to the lack of
considering the time value of risk in the risk assessment process. As for the mine closure risk
assessment, the time value of risk is considered as an effective factor in the risk analysis process.
The potential events which occur after mine closure are related to the feature timeframe. In
addition, determining the frequency of these events as an effective parameter should be
emphasized in calculating the risk score. In order to understand the effect of time factor in risk
assessment process, two examples were provided for mine closure risks such as tailings dam
failure because of the severe earthquake and contaminating the surface and underground water
flow due to Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) entry. By using the 2D risk model, it is supposed that
both risk have a likelihood of occurrence of likely and impact of catastrophic. Therefore, both
events involve the same risk level. However, regarding water contamination by AMD, the
recipient environment is exposed to this risk continuously. However, the earthquake is a process
which takes place during a long period (over 10-20 years). As a result, by considering the time
factor, two risks with the same likelihood and consequence takes different risk levels. In fact, a
risk which occurs over a short period of time such as the second example has a higher risk level.
Thus, a semi-quantitative 3D risk assessment model was developed. The deficiency of 2D risk
model in the context of the time value of the risk was covered well in the new model. Based on
2D risk model, the magnitude of risk is regarded as a function of probability and consequences
of each potential event. However, a new dimension representing the time value of risk is added
to 2D risk model based on 3D risk model. Then, the 2D risk model turns into a risk cube called
"3D risk model" (Fig. 2).
1
3
2
E
3 10
6
10
6
10
3

6
1

L 3
0.5

1 1 2 5 10 20

0.5

1 2 5 10 20
C Moderate Low
Extreme High

Fig. 2. A schematic plan of 3D risk model

In this model, the risk score is calculated by using Equation (1). As illustrated in Fig. 2, each
layer of this cube represents a level of exposure to risk and each of the color codes represents a
risk level.
RS = E * L * C (1)

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

where, RS represents the risk score, E indicates the exposure to risk related to the frequency of
an event occurrence which represents the time factor, L is regarded as the likelihood of
occurrence and C displays the potential consequences. Table 2 indicates the determined values of
these parameters based on the descriptive numbers. After calculating the risk score by using
Equation (1), the risk level is determined based on the categories (Table 3). The risk levels are
constant for each pair of likelihood and consequences in 2D risk model while the risk level is
dynamic and it is possible to allocate different risk level for the same values of likelihood and
consequences by considering the time factor in 3D risk model (Fig. 2).
Table 2. Quantitative description of 3D risk model parameters
Exposure Value Likelihood Value Consequence Value
(E) (L) (C)
Continuously 10 Almost certain 10 Catastrophic 20
(Occurrence time: Daily) (Probability > 95%)
Frequently 6 Likely 6 Major 10
(Occurrence time: < 1 year) (Probability > 65%)
Occasionally 3 Possible 3 Moderate 5
(Occurrence time: < 3 years) (Probability > 35%)
Infrequently 2 Unlikely 1 Minor 2
(Occurrence time: < 5 years) (Probability <35%)
Rarely 1 Virtually impossible 0.5 Insignificant 1
(Occurrence time: >10 years) (Probability < 5%)

Table 3. Relationship between risk score and risk level

Risk Score Risk level Appropriate action
(RS)
RS > 200 Extreme Must be managed by senior management with a detailed action plan

100 ≤ RS ≤ 200 High Immediate correction based on the research and management
planning at senior levels

30 ≤ RS ˂ 100 Moderate Specific monitoring or response procedures required

RS < 30 Low Perhaps acceptable and otherwise, can be managed with routine
procedures

As illustrated in Fig.3, a 3D risk assessment nomograph is developed to facilitate the

determination of final risk level. Given that the determination of risk level based on a 3D risk
model requires the separation of the risk exposure layers, the 3D risk assessment nomograph is
regarded as a simple method for determining the risk level. As shown in Fig. 3, in the proposed
nomograph, one can reach the point C on the tie line after connecting the points A and B together
which represent the values of likelihood and exposure, respectively. Then, the point C is
connected to point D (i.e. consequence). Later, continouing this line straightly will reach to the
resulting risk score (point E) and ultimately the risk level is determined.

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

A
0.5 1 3 6 10 Likelihood

impossible

Likely
Unlikely

Almost
Possible

certain
Virtually
B
10 6 3 2 1 Exposure

Occasionally
Frequently
Continuously

Infrequently

Rarely
Tie Line C

D
1 2 5 10 20 Consequence
Moderate
Minor

Major

Catastrophic
Insignificant

30 100 200 Risk score

Low Moderate High Extreme Risk level

Fig. 3. A schematic plan of a 3D risk assessment nomograph

2.3. Risk treatment

Risk treatment is planned after evaluating the risk, which determines the required measures to
modify the unacceptable risks. During this stage, the decisions are adopted with respect to the
response to the risks, which provide an appropriate solution to risk modification. The risk
treatment aims to eliminate the negative effects as far as possible and reduce their probability
and consequences in order to modify the risks. In this regard, treatment options such as
accepting, reducing, optimizing, transferring or avoiding risk are evaluated. By considering mine
closure risk treatment, mine reclamation is regarded as an avoidance and reduction option. Mine
reclamation is a progressive activity, during which the pollutions left by mining activities are
resolved as possible. Hence, the mine closure risk levels are reduced which are responsible for
preparing the mined land such as pit, waste dump and tailings dam area for PMLU. Table 4
represents the key objectives of mine reclamation. As displayed in Table 4, the goals related to
mine reclamation are consistent with preventing or reducing the negative effects of mine closure.
Actually, mine reclamation is regarded as a risk measure related to all five groups of the mine
closure risks (Table 1).

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4. The key objectives of mine reclamation (Osanloo, 2017; Dimitrijevic et al, 2014)
No. Mine reclamation objective
1 Protect the health and safety of mine workers and residents
2 Creating a profitable and sustainable land use
3 Minimize or prevent damage to environment
4 Improve the region’s landscape
5 Reduce the negative impacts of mining activities
6 Social, economic and environmental stabilization

Mine reclamation plan is highly influenced by PMLU which can deeply affect the expenses
and implementation of reclamation activities. The optimal PMLU selection is largely regarded as
the basic step in the successful implementation of the reclamation plan. An appropriate PMLU
should include a good consistency with local conditions and community needs, in addition to
covering the critical mine closure risks. In addition, PMLU alternatives are selected based on the
results of the risk assessment process and those options should be selected for the purpose of
controlling the closure risks. Table 5 demonstrates a classification of PMLU alternatives by
reviewing mine reclamation projects comprehensively (Steward, 1996; Griffith and Toy, 2001;
Narrei and osanloo, 2011; Wei et al., 2011; Maczkowiack et al., 2012; Vickers, et al., 2012;
Kuka et al., 2013; Delgado-Martin et al., 2013; Sloss, 2013; Yan et al, 2013; Skousen and
Zipper, 2014; LeClerc and Keeling, 2015).

Table 5. Classification of PMLU alternatives

No PMLU
1 Agricultural
2 Forestry
3 Wildlife Habitats
4 Recreational
5 Lake or pool
6 Industrial & Commercial
7 Other land- use
description
Arable farmland, garden, grazing, pasture
Lumber production, shrubs and native forestation
National parks
Sport field, sailing, hunting, park, museum or exhibition
Aquaculture, sailing, swimming, water supply, fishing pond
Industrial & Commercial uses
Residential, educational, pit backfilling (as a last resort)

PMLU selection is considered as a MCDM problem and different groups such as mine
stakeholders, local responsible persons, and environmental team are involved with various
opinions. MCDM techniques are varied in such a way that there are many suitable methods for
PMLU problem and the choice becomes a matter of taste. AHP, TOPSIS, ELECTRE and
PROMETHEE are the most used techniques in solving the problems related to PMLU selection.
Here, selecting the most suitable decision making method is not regarded as the main purpose
while choosing the most appropriate PMLU option is expected. Both ELECTRE (Roy, 1968) and
PROMETHEE (Brans et al, 1968) methods are related to the category of outranking methods.
PROMETHEE is devoid of ELECTRE limitations such as numerous calculations, complex
procedure, time-consuming process and failure to apply the decision maker’s opinion
(Musingwini, 2010). Therefore, PROMETHEE is prioritized for application due to the above-

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

mentioned deficiencies of ELECTRE. By considering the advantages and disadvantages of each

MCDM method, an integration of the above methods can pave the way for obtaining an optimal
solution. In this regard, a hybrid MCDM approach was developed based on the AHP,
PROMETHEE and TOPSIS methods. Fig.4 illustrates a framework for the proposed robust
MCDM approach.

Ranking decision criteria

Determination of PMLU with AHP method
alternatives
Selecting the most
important criteria
Recognizing decision
criteria
Calculating relative weights
with AHP method
Formation decision
making matrix

PMLU alternative ranking

PROMETHEE method TOPSIS method

Selection of the PMLU option

Fig. 4. The framework for selecting the optimal PMLU

2.3.1. Determination of PMLU

The determination of land-use alternatives plays a significant role in mine reclamation. As

displayed in Table 5, different possible PMLU alternatives are available. Those options should
be selected to control the closure risks by considering the risk assessment results.

2.3.2. Criteria identification

As indicated in Table 6, PMLU is influenced by different criteria, which are classified into
five groups based on the previous studies conducted in this area (Soltanmohammadi et al.,
2008a, 2008b, 2009; Narrei and osanloo, 2011). It should be emphasized that the proposed
classification has some modifications in order to evaluate the criteria better in more details. In
this regard, a new group entitled “Landscape and environmental factors” was added. The 26
above-mentioned criteria covers the main effective factors in solving the problems related to
PMLU selection.

A large number of criteria may be confusing in the survey forms. Thus, these criteria are
evaluated to select the most important ones. To do so, AHP method is implemented, the most
important criteria are determined, and the relative weights of criteria are calculated based on a

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

pair-wise comparison model. The steps involved in this method have been described frequently
in the literature on operational research. (Saaty, 1980,1990).

2.3.3. Ranking of PMLU alternatives

In this section, PMLU alternatives are ranked by using the PROMETHEE and TOPSIS
methods. By sharing the results of these methods, the optimal PMLU for risk treatment is
selected according to the decision maker’s opinions.
Table 6. Decision making criteria in PMLU selection
ID Criteria ID Criteria

E Economic factors S Social factors

E1 Capital cost S1 Employment opportunities due to

implementation of PMLU
E2 Operating cost S2 Reducing of immigration from mining area

E3 Increasing local community income S3 Improving the life quality

E4 Improve the real estate value S4 Conformity with government policy

E5 Maintenance cost S5 Flexibility with local life style

E6 Payback period S6 Consistency with concerns and needs of locals

T Technical factors S7 Creating interests for landowner

T1 Shape and size of the mined land M Mine site factors

T2 Distance to nearest water supply M1 Physical properties of soil

T3 Ability to implement the reclamation plan M2 Chemical properties of soil

T4 Current land-use in surrounding area of the mine M3 Exposure to sunshine

L Landscape & environmental factors M4 Precipitation

L1 Landscape quality caused by the implementation of M5 Land slope

the PMLU
L2 Environmental acceptability of the PMLU option M6 Temperature

L3 Impact on the desertification stop

E This group includes criteria related to the economic
characteristics of PMLU alternatives
S This group includes criteria related to the positive
impacts of PMLU on society
L This group includes criteria related to the positive
effects of PMLU on landscape and environment
T This group includes criteria related to the
technical constraints that affecting the
selection of optimal PMLU option
M This group includes criteria related to the
restrictive conditions arising from the mine
site characteristics

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

As for PROMETHEE, a finite number of alternatives are ranked based on some conflicting
criteria. A PROMETHEE method includes a partial ranking (PROMETHEE I) and complete
ranking (PROMETHEE II). The six steps related to PROMETHEE II are as follows (Brans et al.,
1986; Behzadian et al., 2010):
Step 1. Constructing a decision matrix where each element of the decision matrix (𝐶𝑗(𝐴𝑖)) is a
measurement of a criterion on an alternative
Step 2. Determining the deviation of the related alternatives for each criterion

d j  A i , A i   C j  A i   C j  A i   , i=1,2, …,m, 𝑖'=1, 2,… , m, j=1,…, n (2)

where 𝑑𝑗(𝐴𝑖 , 𝐴𝑖') represents the difference between two evaluations (𝐴𝑖 and 𝐴𝑖' ) on each
criterion. This equation is inverted to a negative nature for the criterion.
Step 3. Calculating the preference function value

Pj  A i , A i    f d j  A i , A i    (3)

where f indicates the preference function which is determined based on the nature of each
criterion and the decision maker's opinion.
Step 4. Calculating the preference index
n n
(4)
π  A i , A i    Pj  A i , A i  w j , w j 1
j 1 j 1

where 𝑤𝑗 displays the relative weight of each criterion.

Step 5. Calculating the outranking flows
1 (5)
  Ai     Ai , Ai  
m  1 x òA
1 (6)
  Ai     Ai  , Ai 
m  1 x A
+
where ⌀ (𝐴𝑖) , ⌀ ‒ (𝐴𝑖) are described as the leaving and entering flow, respectively.

Step 6. Calculating the net outranking flow

  Ai     Ai     Ai  (7)

Alternatives are ranked based on the outranking flow so that the alternative with the most
outranking flow can be regarded as the optimal solution.
TOPSIS is based on two concepts, namely positive and negative ideal solutions. Thus, the
optimal decision has the greatest and less similarity to positive and negative ideal solution,

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

respectively. The following steps are taken for TOPSIS method (Hwang and Yoon, 1981; Kuo,
2017):
Step 1. Establishing the decision matrix where each element of decision matrix (𝑥𝑖𝑗) is a measure
of criterion C𝑗 over alternative 𝐴𝑖.

Step 2. Creating the normalized decision matrix

xij (8)
rij  , i = 1, 2,…, m; j= 1,2,…,n
m

 (x
i 1
ij )2

Step 3. Creating the weighted normalized decision matrix

𝑣𝑖𝑗= 𝑤𝑗 𝑟𝑖𝑗, i = 1, 2,…, m; j= 1,2,…,n (9)

where 𝑤𝑗 represents the weight of criterion j indicating its relative importance, compared to other
criteria.
Step 4. Determining the positive and negative ideal solutions
+ + + + 𝑚𝑖𝑛 + ‒ 𝑚𝑎𝑥 + (10)
𝐴 = {𝑉1 , 𝑉2 , … , 𝑉𝑗 , … , 𝑉𝑛 } = {(
⩝𝑖
𝑉 |𝑗єJ )}
⩝𝑖 𝑖𝑗
𝑣𝑖𝑗|𝑗єJ ), (
‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 𝑚𝑖𝑛 + 𝑚𝑎𝑥 ‒ (11)
𝐴 = {𝑉1 , 𝑉2 , … , 𝑉𝑗 , … , 𝑉𝑛 } = {( 𝑉 |𝑗єJ ), ( 𝑉 |𝑗єJ )}
⩝𝑖 𝑖𝑗 ⩝𝑖 𝑖𝑗

+ ‒ +
where 𝐴 indicates the positive ideal solution, 𝐴 represents the negative ideal solution, J is
‒
regarded as the set of positive criteria such as the profit and J displays the set of negative
criteria such as the cost.
+ ‒
Step 5. Calculating the distances from 𝐴 and 𝐴

𝑠𝑖
+
= ∑𝑛 (𝑉𝑖𝑗 ‒ 𝑉𝑗 )
+ 2 (12)
𝑗=1

𝑠𝑖 =
‒
∑𝑛 (𝑉𝑖𝑗 ‒ 𝑉𝑗 )
‒ 2 (13)
𝑗=1

+ ‒
where 𝑠𝑖 indicates the distance from the positive ideal solution and 𝑠𝑖 shows the distance
from the negative ideal solution.

Step 6. Calculating the similarity index and ranking alternatives

‒
+
𝑠𝑖
+ (14)
𝑐𝑖 = + ‒ , 0 ˂ 𝑐𝑖 ˂1
𝑠𝑖 + 𝑠𝑖

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

+
Alternatives are ranked based on the similarity index (𝑐𝑖 ) in order to obtain the best
+
alternative for the highest 𝑐𝑖 .

3. Verifying the proposed approach

The proposed methodology is implemented in Choghart iron ore mine of Iran. Choghart mine
is located in Bafgh mining district in central Iran, 12 km northeast of Bafgh and 125 km
southeast of Yazd (Fig. 5). The annual production is approximately 3 million tons with an overall
2
stripping ratio of 0.66:1. The area is 40 𝑘𝑚 . The region includes a dry climate with very hot
summers and the average annual rainfall is 53 mm. During the year, the temperature ranges
between -7 °c in winter to +47 °c in summer (ICIOC, 2017).
3.1. Mine closure risk assessment
The values related to the likelihood, consequences and exposure are determined by a team of
experts in order to analyze the identified closure risks (Table 1). The team includes mine
managers, mine planners, mine engineers and the chief of the mine HSE (Health, Safety and
Environment) sector. Table 7 represents the results of the questionnaires and the level of risks
according to 3D risk model.

Caspian Sea

Tehran

Yazd
Choghart mine

Kerman

Pe
rsi
an
Gu
lf

Fig. 5. Location of the Choghart iron ore mine

Table 7. Risk analysis results

Risk Code Likelihood Consequence Exposure Risk Risk level Color codes
Score
ER1 0.5 1 1 0.5 L
ER2 0.5 1 1 0.5 L
ER3 0.5 1 1 0.5 L
ER4 0.5 1 1 0.5 L
ER5 0.5 1 1 0.5 L

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

ER6 3 2 2 12 L
ER7 1 10 2 20 H
ER8 6 2 10 120 H
ER9 6 5 3 90 M
ER10 1 1 3 3 L
ER11 3 2 1 6 L
ER12 0.5 1 1 0.5 L

Table 7. Risk analysis results (continued)

Risk Code Likelihood Consequence Exposure Risk Risk level Color codes
Score
HR1 3 20 3 180 H
HR2 6 5 3 90 M
HR3 3 5 1 15 L
HR4 3 10 1 30 M
HR5 1 10 1 10 L
HR6 3 2 1 6 L
HR7 0.5 1 1 0.5 L
LR1 6 10 3 180 H
LR2 3 5 3 45 M
LR3 1 2 1 2 L
LR4 1 2 1 2 L
LR5 3 5 3 45 M
TR1 10 10 6 600 E
TR2 6 5 3 90 M
TR3 3 2 3 18 L
CR1 6 10 3 180 H
CR2 6 10 6 360 E
CR3 3 5 2 30 M
CR4 10 20 6 1200 E
CR5 10 20 10 2000 E
CR6 1 2 2 4 L
CR7 3 5 3 45 M
CR8 3 2 3 18 L

Based on the results in Table 7, the most extreme risk levels are related to TR1, CR2, CR4
and CR5. In other words, an immediate action should be taken for these risks. In addition, LR1,
ER7, ER8, CR1 and CR8 have a high risk level and the priority for controlling actions is high. A
large number of these risks belong to the social risk category. Fig. 6 illustrates the frequency of
16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

risk level in order to evaluate the results of risk analysis. Based on the results, most of the
identified risks (51.4%) have a low risk level (risk score is less than 30).
3.2. Risk treatment
Mine reclamation is regarded as a response to mine closure risks. Mine reclamation plan
leads to closure risk management and creates a sustainable land-use. The PMLU is selected
based on the risk assessment results in order to respond to the critical identified risks by
considering the limitations of the influential factors on PMLU selection. As shown in Table 8,
the possible PMLU alternatives are selected based on the results of the risk assessment (Table 7)
and considering the regional characteristics of Chogart iron ore mine.

Extreme
11.4%

High
14.3%

Low
51.4%
Medium
22.9%

Fig. 6. Frequency chart of risk level

Table 8. PMLU alternatives

ID PMLU alternative
A1 Solar power station
A2 Pit backfilling
A3 Educational centers
A4 Industrial construction
A5 Revegetaion (native and resistant species)
A6 Agriculture (Cereals, dates, pistachios)

As displayed in Table 6, PMLU selection is influenced by economic, social, landscape and

environmental, technical and mine site factors. Survey forms were sent to experts in order to
select the most important criteria from among the 26 criteria listed in Table 6. Fig.7 displays the
relative weights calculated by AHP. By considering the calculated weights, 15 criteria are
selected to cover all five groups. Therefore, with respect to the ratio of the number of criteria in
each group, the criteria with the highest relative weights are selected. Fig. 7 illustrates the
selected criteria. All criteria are positive except E1 and E5. The selected 15 criteria in previous

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

step are not based on the same level of importance and their relative weights are different.
Therefore, the relative weights of the selected criteria are calculated by AHP (Fig. 8).
As shown in Fig.4, the presented MCDM approach is implemented to select the optimum
PMLU. In this regard, the decision matrix is constructed based on the expert’s opinions. In this
matrix, the score of alternatives for each criterion is determined by expert team by selecting a
number from 1-9. The highest score for the criteria with the positive nature represents a
favorable situation while it reflects the adverse conditions for the criteria with negative nature.
Table 9 demonstrates the decision matrix

0.1
AHP Weights

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 T1 T2 T3 T4 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 L1 L2 L3
Decision criteria

Fig. 7. The Relative weights of the decision criteria based on AHP

AHP weights

0.15
Economic factors
0.1 Social factors
Technical factors
Mine site factors
0.05
Landscape &
Environmental factors
0
E1 E3 E5 S1 S3 S5 S6 S7 Decision
T2 T4 M1 criteria
M2 M3 L1 L3

Fig. 8. The relative weights of the selected criteria based on AHP

Table 9. PMLU decision matrix in Choghart iron ore mine

E1 E3 E5 S1 S3 S5 S6 S7 T2 T4 M1 M2 M3 L1 L3
+/- - + - + + + + + + + + + + + +
Specific
weight 0.1 0.08 0.13 0.06 0.03 0.1 0.13 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.13 0.06

A1 8 6 8 6 6 4 6 8 5 4 4 3 9 5 3
A2 4 2 5 4 2 1 4 2 4 3 3 2 6 1 2
A3 7 7 6 8 7 5 8 8 2 4 4 2 7 3 3

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

A4 6 3 5 4 4 3 3 6 3 3 4 2 4 4 3
A5 3 3 2 4 7 7 6 5 5 7 7 6 6 7 8
A6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 7 1 8 4 4 5 8 7

PMLU alternatives are ranked by PROMETHEE II and TOPSIS techniques. In the present
study, the preference function of the V-shaped criterion (Equation 15) is selected for all criteria
based on PROMETHEE II method.

{
0𝑑≤0 (15)
𝑑
𝑓(𝑑) = 𝑝
0≤𝑑≤𝑝
1𝑑˃𝑝

where the parameter p represents the preferred threshold and the value equals to 8 in this study.
+
Table 10 indicates the PROMETHEE calculation matrix. The values of leaving flow (∅ ),
‒
entering flow (∅ ), net outranking flow (∅) and final rate of alternatives are displayed in Table
11. In addition, Table 12 presents the outcomes of TOPSIS method.

Table 10. PROMETHEE calculation matrix

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6
A1 0.101 0.119 0.075 0.312 0.268
A2 0.261 0.292 0.119 0.409 0.473
A3 0.048 0.061 0.049 0.294 0.208
A4 0.166 0.049 0.210 0.344 0.373
A5 0.063 0 0.116 0.005 0.145
A6 0.025 0.070 0.036 0.039 0.150

Table 11. The Results of PROMETHEE II method

PMLU alternatives + ‒ ∅ Ranking

∅ ∅

A1 0.113 0.175 -0.062 4

A2 0.056 0.311 -0.255 6
A3 0.155 0.132 0.023 3
A4 0.058 0.228 -0.17 5
A5 0.302 0.066 0.236 1
A6 0.293 0.064 0.229 2

Table 12. The Outcomes of TOPSIS method

+
PMLU alternatives Similarity index (𝒄𝒊 ) Ranking

A1 0.397 5
A2 0.298 6
A3 0.53 3
A4 0.429 4
A5 0.755 1

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

A6 0.723 2

As indicated in Table 13, all alternatives except the fourth and fifth alternatives have the same
ranks in both methods. However, this difference is normal by considering the special structure of
each method. In both methods, the first and second ranks belong to A5 and A6, respectively.
Thus, by comparing the results of these two methods, A5 (Revegetation with native and resistant
species) is regarded as the optimal PMLU in Choghart iron ore mine.

Table 13. Comparison of ranking of the alternatives

PMLU alternative PROMETHEE ranking TOPSIS ranking Similar rating

A1 4 5 ×
A2 6 6 
A3 3 3 
A4 5 4 ×
A5 1 1 
A6 2 2 

4. Discussion

Mine closure risk management plays a significant role in maintaining mining activities along
with the principles of SD. In this regard, a robust mine closure risk management approach was
developed based on the 3D risk model as well as a robust hybrid decision support system, which
was developed and implemented to each mining project, along with different minerals with some
modifications on risk factors and the applied PMLU alternatives, based on the special conditions
related to the types of mineral and region conditions. Mine closure problems are idiosyncratic for
each mine which are influenced by the type of mineral and mining method. However, it is
possible to provide a generic classification for the problems related to the closure. Open pit iron
ore mines were selected for the purpose of the present study.
Developing a 3D risk assessment model based on the time factor as one of the most important
features of the mine closure risks is regarded as the superiority of this approach, compared to
other similar studies. In addition, the link between the mine closure risks and mine reclamation
plan as a risk measure was emphasized in the present study. In this regard, an MCDM framework
was developed to select the optimal PMLU which results in controlling and modifying the risks
which are considered unacceptable during the risk assessment process.
According to Paricheh and Osanloo (2017), three strategies are available for the way the
sustainable dimensions are implanted into mining operations. The first and best strategy focuses
on the prevention of any negative effect. The second tries to consider the sustainable aspects
during the mining operation. Finally, the last option is used to recover/improve the unwanted bad
situations. The approach proposed in the present study can help mine planner to identify

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

undesirable events of mine closure and consider appropriate corrective actions. The results of
this approach can be used for post-mining long-term planning and estimating the required
budget. In addition, it can be implemented in the feasibility studies, during mining operations
and even after the mining operation is demolished. Further, the current study can cover all the
three afore-mentioned strategies based on the time and stage in which mining operation is used.
Generally, mine closure and reclamation planning are evaluated in the feasibility study.
Accordingly, the reclamation plan is scheduled and the optimal PMLU is selected by assessing
the causes of mine closure and its related issues. However, this approach can manage and control
mine closure problems in the case of mines without closure and reclamation plan (the second and
third strategies). The problems related to the closure risks in the last stages of mine life are more
critical than that of the former stages. It is worth noting that the restrictions for reclamation
planning and possible PMLU alternatives are more than the feasibility study stage at this time
since there are many problems in the mine reclamation planning if mine closure risk
management takes place in the middle of mine life, given that many of the negative effects of
mining activities have not been planned from the outset. For example, due to lack of planning in
feasibility study for AMD generation, some restrictions are imposed in the reclamation plan and
the type of the PMLU. In this case, the remediation of the soil is not easily achievable and some
PMLUs are eliminated from the list.
The results of the present study were compared with those of 2D risk model in order to verify
the proposed model (Fig. 9). Based on 2D risk model, the frequency of moderate and extreme
risk level are high, compared to the 3D risk model. Due to the limitations on budget and time, it
is essential to treat the main and critical risks. As the time value of risk is not considered in 2D
risk model, a large number of the events with low frequency of occurrence have higher risk
levels and their treatment wastes more budget and time.
Frequency of risk level

60%

50%

40%

30% 2D risk model

20% 3D risk model

10%

0%
Low Moderate High Extreme
Risk level

Fig. 9. Comparision the results of 2D and 3D risk model

Based on the statistics provided by the Statistical Center of Iran (SCI, 2017), Choghart iron
ore mine plays a great role in reducing immigration, increasing employment opportunities and
expanding the downstream industries. Most of the identified events with extreme risk level are

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

related to the social events group. Therefore, in situations where a city depends on the mining
industry, mine closure leads to extreme negative effects on the society.
In addition, the selected PMLU (Revegetation with native species) in the Choghart iron ore
mine is well-matched with the results of the mine closure risk assessment and can cover several
groups of critical risks. Thus, revegetating the mined land area as a PMLU leads to
environmental improvement and stability. Further, the land-use through pasture, forage and
medicinal plants can generate sustainable income in the region. Regarding Choghart mine, an
increase in crime is regarded as one of the main identified risks with extreme risk level.
However, revegetation can result in decreasing crime. Based on sociology, crimes occur due to
immediate decisions and mental fatigue. Mental health is the most important effective factor on
committing the crime. Vegetation makes the environment stylish and creates a beautiful, eye-
catching landscape. Furthermore, more oxygen is produced in an environment with dense
vegetation. As a result, local people can play a better morale and more oxygen will reach the
individual’s brain and make a reasonable decision during crime commitment. Kuo and Sullivan
(2001) indicated that vegetation can result in deterring crime by mitigating some of the
psychological precursors to violence and enhancing cognitive functions. In addition, residents
living in greener surrounding reported less fear, fewer incivilities, as well as less aggressive and
violent behavior.
The results of PROMETHEE II and TOPSIS methods in the case study indicated that these
methods are compatible. In other words, the selection of these methods is correct and the most
appropriate option has been selected. The most important decision-making results is related to
the difference between the alternative A5 (Revegetation with native species) and A6
(Agriculture). Based on the decision matrix, the scores related to the alternative A6 are less than
those in A5 regarding the criteria related to mine site factors (M1-M3) and also T2 (access to the
nearest water resources). Finally, it seems that the most important factor in ignoring alternative
A6 as the optimal option is concerned with the access to the nearest water resources (T2).

5. Conclusion

In the present study, a 3D risk management approach was developed to manage the mine
closure risks. Compared to other similar methods, the proposed model is preferred based on the
time value of risk as the third dimension of risk. The ability of adopting the new model to each
mining project and every type of mineral is regarded as another advantage of this risk
management approach. The results of the proposed approach can be used as a guide for post-
mining long-term planning and estimating the required budget. The results of applying this
approach in Choghart iron ore mine indicate its effectiveness, compared to the 2D risk model.
According to the risk assessment results, 51.4% and 22.9% of the identified events had a low
and medium risk level, respectively. As more than 70% of the events have low and medium risk
level, the overall situation of the Choghart mine is appropriate with respect to mine closure risks.
In the treatment step, six PMLU alternatives were evaluated based on the most important criteria

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

with regard to the results of risk assessment. Finally, revegetation with native and resistant
species is selected as the optimal PMLU. A cost-benefit analysis should be conducted after
selecting the risk treatment option in order to increase the efficiency of the proposed approach. In
fact, estimating the reclamation cost can be regarded as the main direction for future research.

References:
Aven, T., Vinnem, J.E., 2007. Risk management, with applications from the offshore oil and gas industry. Springer-
Verlag London Ltd, ISBN: 978-1-84628-652-0.
Bascetin, A., 2007. A decision support system using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for the optimal
environmental reclamation of an open-pit mine. Environ. Geol., 52 (4), 663-672.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-006-0495-7.
Behzadian, M., Kazemzadeh, R.B., Albadvi, A., Aghdasi, M., 2010. PROMOTHEE: A comprehesive literature
review on methodologies and applications. Eur. J. Operational Res. 200 (1), 198-215.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021.
Betrie, G., Sadiq, R., Morin, K., & Tesfamariam, S., 2013. Selection of remedial alternatives for mine sites: A
multicriteria decision analysis. J. Env. Man. 119, 36- 46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.024.
Brans, J.P., Vincke, P., Mareschal, B., 1986. How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method.
Eur. J. Operational Res. 24, 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5.
Delgado-Martin, J., Juncosa-Rivera, R., Falcón-Suárez, I., Canal-Vila, J., 2013. Four years of continuous monitoring
of the Meirama end-pit lake and its impact in the definition of future uses. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 20, 7520-
7533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-1618-9.
Dimitrijevic, B., Vujic, S., Matic, I., Majianac, S., Praštalo, J., Radosavljevic, M. & Čolakovic, V., 2014. Multi-
Criterion Analysis of Land Reclamation Methods at Klenovnik Open Pit Mine, Kostolac Coal Basin. J. Min.
Sci. 50(2), 319–325. http://doi.org/10.1134/S106273911402015X.
Eggart, M, J., 2015. Management social, economic and environmental risks. In: Eggart, M. J. (Eds.), Responsible
Mining: case studies in managing social & environmental risks in the developed world. Society for mining,
metallurgy & exploration (SME), pp. 1-12. ISBN 978-0-87335-373-1.
Espinoza, R.D., Morris, J.W.F., 2017. Towards sustainable mining (part II): Accounting for mine reclamation and
post reclamation care liabilities. Resour. Pol. 52.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.01.010.
Fine, W. T., 1971. Mathematical evaluation for controlling hazards. J. Safe. Res. 3(4), 157-166.
Fourie, A., Brent, A.C., 2006. A project-based Mine Closure Model (MCM) for sustainable asset Life Cycle
Management. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (12-13), 1085-1095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.05.008.
Ghanbari, M., Osanloo, M., Azimi, Y., 2010. Developing a new algorithm for mine closure planning. In: Sklenička,
P., Singhal, R., Kašparová, I., Praze,Č, Z, U. (Eds), 12th International Symposium on Environmental Issues and
Waste Management in Energy and Mineral Production SWEMP, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague,
Czech Republic, 24-26 May.
Gheisari, N., Osanloo, M., Esfahanipour, A., Mansouri, M., 2014.closure risk assessment in atashkooh stone quarry
using risk model. In: Drebenstedt C., Singhal R. (Eds), Mine Planning and Equipment Selection. Springer,
Cham. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02678-7_77.
Griffith, J.J., Toy, T.J., 2001. Evolution in revegetation of iron ore mines in Minas Gerais State, Brazil, Unasylva
207 (52), 9-15.
Hartman, H.L., Mutmansky, J.M., 2002. Introductory Mining Engineering. Second Ed. John Wiley & Sons Ltd,
New York. ISBN: 978-0-471-34851-1.

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Hasheela, I., Schneider, G.I.C., Ellmies, R., Haidula, A., Leonard, R., Ndalulilwa, K., Shigwana, O., Walmsley, B.,
2014. Risk assessment methodology for shut-down and abandoned mine sites in Nambia. J. Geo. Exp. 144, 572-
580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2014.05.009.
Heikkinen, P.M., Noras, P., Salminen, R., 2008. Mine Closure Handbook: Environmental Techniques for Extractive
Industry. Geological Survey of Finland, Technical research center of Finland, Outokumpu Oyj and Finnish
Road Enterprise and Soil and Water Ltd, Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy, Finland. ISBN: 978-952-217-042-2.
Hwang, C.L., and Yoon, K., 1981. Multiple attribute decision making methods: A state-of-the-art survey. Springer-
Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9.
ICIOC, 2017. Iran Central Iron Ore Company.http://www.icioc.ir/ (accessed 17.03.06).
ISO 31000, 2009. Risk Management – Principles and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization.
Kinney, G. F., Wiruth, A.D., 1976. Practical risk analysis for safety management. China Lake, Naval Weapons
Center.
Krzemień, A., Sánchez, A.S., Fernández, P.R., Zimmerman, K., Coto, F.G., 2016. Towards sustainability in
underground coal mine closure contexts: A methodology proposal for environmental risk management. J. Clean.
Prod. 139, 1044-1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.149.
Kowalska, I.J., 2014. Risk management in the hard coal mining industry: Social and environmental aspects of
collieries’ liquidation. Resour. Pol. 41, 124-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.05.002.
Kuka, K., Franko, U., Hanke, K., Finkenbein, P., 2013. Investigation of different amendments for dump reclamation
in Northern Vietnam. J. Geochem. Explor. 132, 41-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2013.05.001.
Kuo, F. E., Sullivan, W. C., 2001. Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime?.
Environment and behavior. http://doi.org/10.1177/0013916501333002.
Kuo, T., 2017. A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index. Eur. J. Operational Res. 260, 152-160.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.11.052.
Kodire, A., Hartono, D.M., Haeruman, H., Mansour, I., 2017. Integrated post mining landscape for sustainable land
use: A case study in South Sumatera, Indonesia. Sus. Env. Res. In Press, Corrected Proof.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.serj.2017.03.003.
Laurence, D., 2001, Classification of risk factors associated with mine closure. Miner. Resour. Eng. 10 (3), 315-331.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S0950609801000683.
Laurence, D., 2006. optimization of mine closure process. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (3-4), 285-298.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.04.011.
Laurence, D., 2011. Establishing a sustainable mining operation: an overview. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (2-3), 278-284.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.08.019.
LeClerc, E., Keeling, A., 2015. From cutlines to traplines: Post-industrial land use at the Pine Point mine, The
Extract. Indus. Soc. 2(1), 7-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2014.09.001.
LPSDP, 2016. Risk management. Leading Practice Sustainable Development Program for the mining industry,
Australian government, Department of Industry, Innovation and Science.
https://industry.gov.au/resource/Documents/LPSDP/LPSDP-RiskHandbook.pdf.
Maczkowiack, R. I., Smith, C. S., Slaughter, G. J., Mulligan, D. R., & Cameron, D. C., 2012. Grazing as a post-
mining land use: A conceptual model of the risk factors. Agricul. Sys. 109, 76-89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2012.03.002.
Marhavilas, P., and Koulouriotis, .E., 2008. A risk-estimation methodological framework using quantitative
assessment techniques and real accidents’ data: Application in an aluminum extrusion industry. J. Loss. Prevent.
Process. Ind. 21 (6), 596-603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2008.04.009.
Mborah, C., Bansah, K.J. & Boateng, M.K., 2016. Evaluating Alternate Post-Mining Land-Uses: A Review.
Environ. . Pollut. 5 (1), 14-22.http://doi.org/10.5539/ep.v5n1p14.

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Minaei Mobtaker, M., Osanloo, M., 2013. Prediction of iron ore mine closure causes under uncertainty conditions,
using Vikor technique. In: 6th International Conference on Sustainable Development in the Mineral Industry,
Milos island, Greece, 30 June - 3 July.
Musingwini, C., 2010. A review of the theory and application of multi-criteria decision analysis techniques in mine
planning. In:Topal, E; Fremantle, W.A. (Eds), proceeding of the 19thInternational Symposium on Mine
Planning and Equipment Selection (MPES), Western Australia, 1-3 December.
Narrei, S., Osanloo, M., 2011. Post mining land-use optimum ranking, using multi attribute decision techniques with
regard to sustainable resources management. OIDA Int. J. Sustain. Develop. 11(2), 65-76.
Osanloo, M. 2017. Mine reclamation. Third Ed. Amirkabir University of Technology Publication, p 222. ISBN:
964-463-090-4 [in Persian].
Paricheh, M., Osanloo, M., 2017. A simulation-based framework for estimating probable open-pit mine closure time
and cost. J. Clean. Prod. 167, 337-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.202.
Rahmanpour, M., Osanloo, M., 2017. A decision support system for determination of a sustainable pit limit. J.
Clean. Prod. 141, 1249-1258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.205.
Ristić, D., 2013. A tool for risk assessment. Safe. Eng. 3(3), 121-127. http://doi.org/10.7562/SE2013.3.03.03.
RMO (Risk Management Office), 2004. Risk Assessment 3D Model. Environmental. Health and Safety (EHS)
Manual, Version 1/04, University of Melbourne. http://www.cab.unimelb.edu.au/pdf/ra11.pdf.
Roy, B. 1968. Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples (la méthode ELECTRE). La Revue
d'Informatique et de Recherche Opérationnelle (RIRO). 8, 57–75.
Ruiz Chaparro, M., 2014. A new dimension to risk assessment. MSc thesis, Center for mathematical science, Lund
university, Sweden.
Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytical Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Saaty, T.L., 1990. The Analytical Hierarchy Process in conflict management. Int. J. Conflict Man. 1 (1), 47- 68.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022672.
SCI, 2017. Statistical Center of Iran. https://www.amar.org.ir/ (accessed 17.04.08).
Shenavar, M., Osanloo, M., 2016. Land use selection and reclamation layout planning by MCDM – case study:
Sangan placer iron ore mine of Iran. In: Başçetin, A., Kursun, L., Özdemir, O. (Eds). 16th International
Symposium on Environmental Issues and Waste Management in Energy and Mineral Production (SWEMP),
Istanbul, Turkey, 5-7 October.
Skousen, J., Zipper, C.E., 2014. Post-mining policies and practices in the Eastern USA coal region, Int. J. Coal. Sci.
Tech. 1(2), 135-151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40789-014-0021-6.
Sloss, L., 2013. Coal mine site reclamation. IEA Clean Coal Centre, CCC/216. ISBN 978-92-9029-536-5.
Soltanmohammadi, H., Osanloo, M., Rezaei, B., Aghajani Bazzazi, A., 2008a. Achieving to some outranking
relationships between post mining land uses through mined land suitability analysis. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Tech. 5
(4), 535-546.http://doi.org/10.1007/BF03326051.
Soltanmohammadi, H., Osanloo, M., Aghajani Bazzazi, A., 2008b. Developing a fifty-attribute framework for mined
land suitability analysis using AHP-TOPSIS approach. In: proceedings of post-mining symposium, Nancy,
France, 6-8 February.
Soltanmohammadi, H., Osanloo, M., Aghajani Bazzazi, A., 2009. Deriving preference order of post-mining land-
uses through MLSA framework: application of an outranking technique. Eniviron. Geol. 58 (4), 877-
888.http://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-008-1563-y.
Steward, M., 1996. Post mining land use. In: Ferris, F. K., Kleinman, L. H. (Eds.), Handbook of western reclamation
techniques, Office of Technology Transfer.

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Stacey, J., Naude, A., Heranus, M., Frankdel, P., 2010. The socio-economic aspects of mine closure and sustainable
development-guideline for the socio-economic aspects of closure: Report 2. J. South. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall
(SAIMM). 110, 395-413. ISSN 2411-9717.
Taveira, A.L.S., Sánchez, L.E., 2016. A risk-based framework for managing mine closure. In: 24th World Mining
Congress. Mining in a World of Innovation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 18-21 October.
Unger, C.J., Lechner, A.M., Kenway, J., Glenn, V., Walton, A., 2015. A jurisdiction maturity model for risk
management, accountability and continual improvement of abandoned mine remediation programs. Resour.
Pol. 43, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.10.008.
Valenzuela, L., Belaúnde, A., Cádiz, R., Campos, J., Valdebenito, L., 2014. Risk assessment guideline for closure of
mine facilities in Chile. In: Mine Closure Solutions Conference, OuroPreto, Minas Gerais, Brazil, 26−30April.
Venkateswarlu, K; Nirola, R; Kuppusamy, S; Thavamani, P; Naidu, R; Meghraj, M; 2016. Abandoned metalliferous
mines: ecological impacts and potential approaches for reclamation. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 15, 327-
354. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-016-9398-6.
Vickers, H., Gillespie, M., Gravina, A., 2012. Assessing the development of rehabilitated grasslands on
post-mined landforms in north west Queensland, Australia. Agricul. Ecosys. Environ. 163, 72-84.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.05.024.
Wei, X., Wei, H., ViaderoJr, R.C., 2011. Post-reclamation water quality trend in a Mid-Appalachian watershed
of abandoned mine lands, Sci. Tot. Env. 409, 941-948. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.11.030.
Winde, F., Stoch, E.J., 2010. Threats and opportunities for post-closure development in dolomitic gold-mining
areas of the West Rand and Far West Rand (South Africa) – a hydraulic view, Part 2: Opprtunities. Water
S.A. 36(1). 75-82.http://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v36i1.50910.
Yan, D., Zhao, F., Sun, O.J., 2013. Assessment of vegetation establishment on tailing dam at iron ore mining site of
suburban Beijing, China, 7 years after reclamation with contrasting site treatment methods. Environ. Manage.
52, 748-757. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0092-y.
Yavuz, M., Altay, B.L., 2015. Reclamation project selection using decision-making methods. Environ. Earth. Sci. 73
(10), 6167-6197.http://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3842-0.
Zhang, D., Jihang, H., Song, J., Yuan, L., 2016. A risk assessment approach based on fuzzy 3D risk model for
network device. In: 2nd IEEE International Conference on Computer and Communications, Chengdu, China,
14-17 October.
Zimmerman, M., 2016. Development of a decision Support System for post mining land use on abandoned surface
coal mines in Appalachia. International Development, CommunityandEnvironment (IDCE), Paper 87.
http://commons.clarku.edu/idce_masters_papers/87/.

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

 An effective methodology based on 3D risk matrix and MCDM techniques was

developed to manage the mine closure risks.
 The 3D risk model helps budget planning for risk treatment by considering the time value
of risk.
 The link between the mine closure risks and mine reclamation plan as a risk measure was
emphasized in the present study.
 Hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach can guarantee reaching to optimal post-
mining land-use alternative.
 The outcomes of the proposed methodology can be used for post-mining long-term
planning and estimating the required budget.