A Novel Hybrid Fuzzy Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Model for the Selection of the Most Suitable Land Reclamation Variant at Open-Pit Coal Mines

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject of this paper is the application of a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model (MCDM) to solve the issue of selecting a reclamation solution for a post-exploitation area of an open-cast mine. The research problem is clearly described. It is presented in the aspect of published realisations of post-mining area rehabilitation in other countries around the world.

The significance of the described decision-making method, especially the description of the innovative hybrid INF SWARA - Fuzzy ROW model for the evaluation of the values of criteria is, in my opinion, high. Of particular interest and value is Chapter 4, which discusses an example process for selecting the optimum decision for reclamation solution of the Tamnava-West Field mine site. It is also valuable to compare the selected most advantageous reclamation solution with the reclamation variants selected by other MCDM methods.

I think the article will be of interest to the readers of the Sustainability journal and I therefore recommend its publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

The subject of this paper is the application of a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model (MCDM) to solve the issue of selecting a reclamation solution for a post-exploitation area of an open-cast mine. The research problem is clearly described. It is presented in the aspect of published realisations of post-mining area rehabilitation in other countries around the world.

The significance of the described decision-making method, especially the description of the innovative hybrid INF SWARA - Fuzzy ROW model for the evaluation of the values of criteria is, in my opinion, high. Of particular interest and value is Chapter 4, which discusses an example process for selecting the optimum decision for reclamation solution of the Tamnava-West Field mine site. It is also valuable to compare the selected most advantageous reclamation solution with the reclamation variants selected by other MCDM methods.

I think the article will be of interest to the readers of the Sustainability journal and I therefore recommend its publication.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your positive review and recommendation.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is interesting and in the scope of the journal. The logic is also clear. However, the manuscript needs some improvements especially in the methodology and the language. The major comments are as follows.

(1)    The literature should be reviewed in depth, with comparisons with previous studies.

(2)    The manuscript using the hybrid fuzzy model should determine the weights of different criteria to reflect their importances in decision-making. However, determining the weight is usually subjective with decisions makers’ preference and experience. How to increase the calculation reliability? Need further elaboration.

（3）IMF SWARA used to define weights is more sensitive to the selection of parameters and the definition of fuzzy sets, so the robustness of the model may be affected. It is necessary to analyze the sensitivity of parameter selection.

(4) Please cite higher quality references.

(5) There are still some grammar and writing mistakes. The language should       be thoroughly improved.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

The manuscript is interesting and in the scope of the journal. The logic is also clear. However, the manuscript needs some improvements especially in the methodology and the language. The major comments are as follows.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment 1: The literature should be reviewed in depth, with comparisons with previous studies.

Reply: The existing literature is reinforced by the conclusions, and certain numbers of new references have been added.

Comment 2: The manuscript using the hybrid fuzzy model should determine the weights of different criteria to reflect their importances in decision-making. However, determining the weight is usually subjective with decisions makers’ preference and experience. How to increase the calculation reliability? Need further elaboration.

Reply: We have added the following text in introduction.

The SWARA IMF method has been used for the calculation of the importance of criteria based on expert analysis and the preferences of the experts. Due to the fact that this method belongs to subjective methods for determining criteria weights, in this study, we have consulted only experts with a minimum of 15 years of field experience, who have high performance, high skills, and enough knowledge to assess mutual comparison of criteria.

Comment 3: IMF SWARA used to define weights is more sensitive to the selection of parameters and the definition of fuzzy sets, so the robustness of the model may be affected. It is necessary to analyze the sensitivity of parameter selection.

Reply: The IMF SWARA represents a good and precise tool for determining criteria weights due to its procedure and the fact that experts need first to sort criteria. After that, the experts only compared two criteria. In this way, the IMF SWARA method in comparison to other methods for calculation criteria weights is a very acceptable tool for experts. Also, compared to other methods, the number of total criteria is not limited, and no need to form a multiphase hierarchical structure as mandatory in the AHP method.

Comment 4: Please cite higher quality references.

Reply: Nine contemporary literatures are added to the paper.

Comment 5: There are still some grammar and writing mistakes. The language should be thoroughly improved.

Reply: We have polished the whole paper, thank you for your remark.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript considers several alternatives for reclamation in a surface coal mine and tries to select the most appropriate solution based on selected criteria and their hierarchical importance. Each land use has subcategories, and the best land use combination is investigated in the research. The developed methodology is applied in the Tamnava-West Field open-pit mine in Serbia.

 

In the framework of sustainable mining, the reclamation of mining areas with the most appropriate land use holds immense promise. This approach can achieve the most productive and sustainable land use when implemented effectively.

 

The authors have made a significant effort to evaluate the land uses depending on their variables. However, several significant issues must be solved regarding the methodology and the conceptual framework of the manuscript. First, from a methodological point of view, the manuscript must present the research gap, the research questions, and the innovative contribution to this specific research area. In this framework, the introduction must provide more background information. The manuscript is written like a technical report and presents the results without further description or discussion.

 

In addition to the issues mentioned above, further specific comments and recommendations for the improvement of the manuscript are noted below:

 

 General Comments

·       Please check the title of the manuscript (“of surface coal mines”?)

·       Some syntax issues throughout the manuscript must be corrected (e.g. line 177, “solution for post-exploitation areas of surface exploitation”).

·       The literature review needs to be more critical.

·       The manuscript's title contains many aspects that must be practically analyzed and developed. The title does not represent the content of the manuscript. Reclamation evaluation is not employed, but several methodological steps are followed to select the most appropriate reclamation solution.  

·       The symbols in the equations should be in the same font as in the text.

·       From an engineering point of view, the practical considerations of the research should be further discussed.

·       Compared to other previous works, the original contribution of the work needs to be presented.

·       The captions of the figures are generic and not representative of what is depicted. They need to be improved.

·       The terms “open pit mine” and “surface mine” are used interchangeably throughout the manuscript. Please check this.

·       Please check the references to follow the journal’s template.

 

Abstract

[Line 20] “multidisciplinary-interdisciplinary” It is a redundancy.

 

1. Introduction

·       [Line

·       s 52-62] What research gap does the present study try to fill? What are the research questions? They need to be clearly described. “The object of the research is an example”. This must be improved because it does not represent the manuscript’s content. It is written that the IMF SWARA - Fuzzy ROV model is applied for the first time in the literature, but documentation of this fact is needed. What is the innovative contribution of this methodology? Is it an existing one or a new one developed by the authors?

 

3. Research methodology

General note: This section is very poorly described. It includes only a flow chart and citation of equations without description. It needs to be extensively improved.

·       Are all the stages of the developed algorithm in Figure 1 connected? The second and third boxes are standalone without connecting the rest of the processes. They should be connected to the question that is followed. Also, what are the questions in the rhombus? In addition, it should be clear what the symbols declare regarding inequalities. The flow chart needs to be further described.

·       [Lines 180-182] This paragraph is too short. It could be integrated with the next paragraph. Also, what is the universal methodology that was applied? Literature reference is needed.

·       [Line 197] What is the TFN scale? It should be written in full at the first reference point and described.

 

4. Application of criterion analysis of mine state

·       [Line 237] The title of the subsection should be modified to “Application of criterion analysis on the mining site”.

·       [Line 243] A location map of the study area needs to be added, and the images of Figure 2 need to be described analytically regarding what is depicted in the left and right images. “a” and “b” could be added under the images.

·       [Lines 248-263] It is suggested that a table with the alternative variables of reclamation be created to make it easier for the reader. What does A1/A2 declare, and what does A6/A1-A5 declare? An explanation of the combinations is needed, either inside the text or as a footnote in the suggested Table.

·       [Lines 307-309] The descriptions of A10 and A11 in Table 3 differ from the respective descriptions.

·       [Line 315] What is the “DM”? It needs to be written in full.

·       [Line 317] All the columns of Table 4 need a title, and the symbols need their name-description. Also, the first two sums equal 1.719 and 5.169, respectively.

·       [Lines 323-324] What do the values in the parentheses declare? An analytical description is needed.

·       [Line 329] The symbols of Table 5 must be explained. They could be added as footnotes under the Table.

·       [Line 342] What does T_i declare?

 

5. Verification tests and discussion

General comment: The results are poorly discussed in this section. The figures need to be explained and interpreted. What do Figures 3 and 4 show?

·       [Line 376] Where is the sensitivity analysis described?

·       [Line 387] The comparative analysis must be described in the text. Figure 5 needs to be described, and its caption needs to be modified to be more representative of its content.

·       [Line 400] What does SA show?

 

6. Conclusion

General comment: The research conclusions need to be described and commented on. Emphasis should be placed on the manuscript's innovative contribution and on the research questions that were answered in the framework of this research. The main conclusions of the research are not presented in this section.

 ·       [Line 422] “and it is applicable in all areas of decision-making and evaluation of variant solutions”. Where was this proved? How is it supported?

 References

 Please check Ref. 5 (Adams, K or Adam, K?)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of the English language is required

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

The manuscript considers several alternatives for reclamation in a surface coal mine and tries to select the most appropriate solution based on selected criteria and their hierarchical importance. Each land use has subcategories, and the best land use combination is investigated in the research. The developed methodology is applied in the Tamnava-West Field open-pit mine in Serbia.

In the framework of sustainable mining, the reclamation of mining areas with the most appropriate land use holds immense promise. This approach can achieve the most productive and sustainable land use when implemented effectively.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The authors have made a significant effort to evaluate the land uses depending on their variables. However, several significant issues must be solved regarding the methodology and the conceptual framework of the manuscript. First, from a methodological point of view, the manuscript must present the research gap, the research questions, and the innovative contribution to this specific research area. In this framework, the introduction must provide more background information. The manuscript is written like a technical report and presents the results without further description or discussion.

Reply: Thank you for your very careful review. We appreciate it. The paper has been corrected adopting your comments and we hope that this version of the paper can satisfy your requests.

In addition to the issues mentioned above, further specific comments and recommendations for the improvement of the manuscript are noted below:

General Comments

Comment 1: Please check the title of the manuscript (“of surface coal mines”?)

Reply: We have changed title of the paper. A Novel Hybrid Fuzzy MCDM Model for Sustainable Selection of the Most Suitable Open-pit Coal Mine Reclamation Variant

Comment 2: Some syntax issues throughout the manuscript must be corrected (e.g. line 177, “solution for post-exploitation areas of surface exploitation”).

Reply: Thank you for your observation. We have corrected it. Now is: Figure 1 presents a Decision-Making Process Algorithm for the selection of a reclamation solution for post-exploitation areas.

Comment 3:  The literature review needs to be more critical.

Reply: We have added a few sentences in the literature review and nine more references.

Comment 4:  The manuscript's title contains many aspects that must be practically analyzed and developed. The title does not represent the content of the manuscript. Reclamation evaluation is not employed, but several methodological steps are followed to select the most appropriate reclamation solution.  

Reply: We have changed title, now is: A Novel Hybrid Fuzzy MCDM Model for Sustainable Selection of the Most Suitable Open-pit Coal Mine Reclamation Variant

Comment 5: From an engineering point of view, the practical considerations of the research should be further discussed.

Reply: That is included in introduction and conclusion sections.

Comment 6: Compared to other previous works, the original contribution of the work needs to be presented.

Reply:

Introduction:

The SWARA IMF method has been used for the calculation of the importance of criteria based on expert analysis and the preferences of experts. Due to the fact that this method belongs to subjective methods for determining criteria weights, in this study, we have consulted only experts with a minimum of 15 years of field experience, who have high performance, high skills, and enough knowledge to assess mutual comparison of criteria. The IMF SWARA represents a good and precise tool for determining criteria weights due to its procedure and the fact that experts first need to sort criteria. After that, the experts only compared two criteria. In this way, the IMF SWARA method compared to other methods for calculation criteria weights is a very acceptable tool for experts. Also, compared to other methods, the number of total criteria is not limited and no need to form a multiphase hierarchical structure as mandatory in the AHP method. The fuzzy ROV method represents a simple but precise tool to sort variants according to multiphase normalization process.

Literature review:

Based on previous studies on mining soils [26-30], the specifics of soil properties that provide useful information for soil reclamation are emphasised particularly. The vulnerability of the mining area is caused by reclamation norms that have been studied and are difficult to apply in practice. Therefore, other comprehensive studies are also included, among others, research related to the application of the MCDM model [31-34]. Similar research has been proposed with the proposed subjective-objective MCDM model in [31] in which AHP and Entropy have been used to determine the criteria weights, while modified VIKOR sorted possible reclamation variants. However, this study considered only three possible variants, while we defined 11 alternatives in our study. Also, the applied methodology for calculating the significance of the criteria from one side requests quantitative data, and from another side a high number of criteria needs to be used, where all criteria should be considered simultaneously. The study [32] provided the MCDM framework for plant species for the reclamation of the copper mine. The methodology Fuzzy AHP, PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organisation Method for Enrichment Evaluation) and Fuzzy TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) is old and many times explored in comparison to our study where we offer new methodology to solve the object of research. The selection of a strategy for the sustainable transformation of a mine constitutes a complex decision-making process that presents various practical problems [33]. This article [34] discusses the strengths-weaknesses-opportunities-threats (SWOT) and AHP for the selection of a sustainable strategy for sustainability with a case study of a closed surface lignite mine in Greece.

Review of other studies can provide the conclusion that we conducted a very comprehensive and suitable tool for the selection of a suitable sustainable reclamation variant of surface cola mining. The advantages of our proposed approach have been discussed through research questions and partly in this section.

Comment 7: The captions of the figures are generic and not representative of what is depicted. They need to be improved.

Reply: Done.

Figure 1. Algorithm of decision-making process in the selection of a reclamation solution

Figure 3. Simulated weights of criteria for evaluation reclamations variants of surface mine through 120 scenarios

Figure 4. New ranks of reclamations variants of surface mine defined in SA

Figure 5. Ranking of alternatives using four different fuzzy MCDM methods

Comment 8: The terms “open pit mine” and “surface mine” are used interchangeably throughout the manuscript. Please check this.

Reply: The whole paper has been polished.

Comment 9:  Please check the references to follow the journal’s template.

Reply: We corrected the references, according to the journal's instructions.

Comment 10: Abstract [Line 20] “multidisciplinary-interdisciplinary” It is a redundancy.

Reply: The word interdisciplinary has been removed.

Comment 11: 1. Introduction: [Lines 52-62] What research gap does the present study try to fill? What are the research questions? They need to be clearly described. “The object of the research is an example”. This must be improved because it does not represent the manuscript’s content. It is written that the IMF SWARA - Fuzzy ROV model is applied for the first time in the literature, but documentation of this fact is needed. What is the innovative contribution of this methodology? Is it an existing one or a new one developed by the authors?

Reply: Yes, you have right. We rewritten introduction section. Please see the following paragraph.

Apart mentioned motivation, aims and purpose, the main research question should be defined.

• Is the problem of the realisation of recultivation solutions in vast areas degraded by coal exploitation evident today in Serbia?
• How can we define all potential problems, and potential solutions, and how can be defined parameters that can fully represent the current state of surface coal mining?
• Which model can provide a comprehensive analysis and give positive results in practice?

The answers to these research questions are followed by the facts we can offer in this comprehensive study model for satistying all local needs for the reculativation of surface cola mining and follow the development of sustainable goals. In Serbia, it is currently evident of the problem realisation of recultivation solutions in vast areas degraded by coal exploitation. We have recognised gaps in practise and in this study all necessary input indicators which have influence on sustainable development. Also, a large set of potential solutions has been created based on experimental measurement and using the engineering process approach. Finally, we have created an integrated fuzzy model which treats uncertainty in precise way and enables optimal results. The verification of the feasibility of multicriteria decision-making models as in this work gave positive results in practice at the Tamnava Zapadno polje mine and confirmed the advantages in the ranking of given alternatives.

3. Research methodology

Comment 12:   

General note: This section is very poorly described. It includes only a flow chart and citation of equations without description. It needs to be extensively improved

Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added more descriptions for Figure 1. Regarding your comment related to equation, we must note that this is a standard procedure for MCDM methods and they are enough explained. For example, the normalisation process of fuzzy ROV method has been explained through a few tasks and equations.

Comment 13: Are all the stages of the developed algorithm in Figure 1 connected? The second and third boxes are standalone without connecting the rest of the processes. They should be connected to the question that is followed. Also, what are the questions in the rhombus? In addition, it should be clear what the symbols declare regarding inequalities. The flow chart needs to be further described.

Reply: We have changed it according to your comment. We corrected Figure 1, added explanations in the text, changed signs.

Comment 14: [Lines 180-182] This paragraph is too short. It could be integrated with the next paragraph. Also, what is the universal methodology that was applied? Literature reference is needed.

Reply: We have integrated paragraphs into one. Also, we added explanation which universal methodology.

A universal methodology (proposed IMF SWARA-Fuzzy ROV model), which is also applicable for surface mine reclamation, was applied. This paper will test and analyze the Tamnava-West Field open-pit mine and disposal site in the Kolubara coal basin in Serbia.

Comment 15: [Line 197] What is the TFN scale? It should be written in full at the first reference point and described.

Reply: We have corrected it. Table 1. Linguistics and the Triangular Fuzzy Number (TFN) scale.

4. Application of criterion analysis of mine state

Comment 16: [Line 237] The title of the subsection should be modified to “Application of criterion analysis on the mining site”.

Reply: We have changed it according to your comment.

Comment 17: [Line 243] A location map of the study area needs to be added, and the images of Figure 2 need to be described analytically regarding what is depicted in the left and right images. “a” and “b” could be added under the images.

Reply: A figure 3 is added. Added comment for Figure 2 ("a" and "b").

Figure 2. Display of the current state of the Tamnava- West Field open-pit mine

Figure 3 shows a map of the mining basin with the locations of Tamnava-West Field and Tamnava-East Field, within which watercourses, roads, forests, fields and meadows noticed in the mining fields are depicted.

Figure 3. Location of Tamnava-West Field (Tamnava Zapadno polje)

Comment 18: [Lines 248-263] It is suggested that a table with the alternative variables of reclamation be created to make it easier for the reader. What does A1/A2 declare, and what does A6/A1-A5 declare? An explanation of the combinations is needed, either inside the text or as a footnote in the suggested Table.

Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added new Table 2. Alternative variants for designing reclamation content

Comment 19: [Lines 307-309] The descriptions of A10 and A11 in Table 3 differ from the respective descriptions.

Reply: Hope that new Table 2 will explain it. In general, has been formed 20 alternatives (Table 2) for consideration of a few coal mining surfaces after exploitation in Serbia. For the case study, Tamnava- Zapadno polje has considered 11 alternatives which represent different integrations of 20 presented in Table 2.

Also, we have added the following text:

A total of 20 potential reclamation variants were selected using a process approach, and for the specific case of the Tamnava-West Field open-pit mine, 11 alternatives were defined and they mostly represent a combination of two or more alternatives.

Comment 20: [Line 315] What is the “DM”? It needs to be written in full.

Reply: The procedure implies that a total of five models of the IMF SWARA method, which represent the results for each DMs individually, have been formed. Table 5 shows the results for the first decision maker (DM).

Comment 21: [Line 317] All the columns of Table 4 need a title, and the symbols need their name-description. Also, the first two sums equal 1.719 and 5.169, respectively.

Reply: We guess that you mean 4.719 (not 1.719) and 5.169. Please note that all calculations have been performed in software that takes into account all decimal places, while Table shows only three decimal places. That is the reason for the difference.

We have added titles for symbols.

Table 5. Criterion weights for DM1 after applying the IMF SWARA algorithm

Criteria	criteria comparison	fuzzy coefficient			weights			final fuzzy weight coefficients
C6	WLS	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.179	0.193	0.212
C11	WLS	1.222	1.250	1.286	0.778	0.800	0.818	0.140	0.155	0.173
C4	MLS	1.222	1.250	1.286	0.605	0.640	0.669	0.109	0.124	0.142
C1	MLS	1.250	1.286	1.333	0.454	0.498	0.536	0.081	0.096	0.113
C2	ES	1.250	1.286	1.333	0.340	0.387	0.428	0.061	0.075	0.091
C3	ES	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.340	0.387	0.428	0.061	0.075	0.091
C9	MLS	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.340	0.387	0.428	0.061	0.075	0.091
C5	LS	1.250	1.286	1.333	0.255	0.301	0.343	0.046	0.058	0.073
C7	ES	1.286	1.333	1.400	0.182	0.226	0.267	0.033	0.044	0.056
C8	WLS	1.000	1.000	1.000	0.182	0.226	0.267	0.033	0.044	0.056
C12	LS	1.222	1.250	1.286	0.142	0.181	0.218	0.025	0.035	0.046
C10	WLS	1.286	1.333	1.400	0.101	0.136	0.170	0.018	0.026	0.036
				SUM	4.720	5.168	5.572

 

Comment 22: [Lines 323-324] What do the values in the parentheses declare? An analytical description is needed.

Reply: We have added the following paragraph:

Calculations obtained using the IMF SWARA method have shown that the social and economic importance of reclamation for the local community is the most significant criterion for decision-making in this research. Also, it should be noted that the next most important criterion is local needs with almost equal value as the most important criterion. The most less significant criterion is correlation between spatial and temporal dynamics of recomposition works.

Comment 23: [Line 329] The symbols of Table 5 must be explained. They could be added as footnotes under the Table.

Reply: We have added description as follows. Because we have added one new Table, this is now Table 6.

Table 6. Initial linguistic matrix

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

C8

C9

C10

C11

C12

A1

VG

EG

EG

EG

EG

MG

G

G

P

VG

EG

G

A2

MP

EP

VP

M

EG

VG

M

M

P

VG

EG

M

A3

MP

G

MG

G

EG

G

MG

MG

P

EG

EG

MG

A4

VG

EP

EG

EG

G

MP

EG

EG

P

VP

M

VP

A5

MP

MG

EG

VP

G

EG

MP

MP

VP

P

G

VP

A6

EP

VP

EG

VP

G

EG

MG

VG

VG

M

EG

G

A7

P

EG

MG

VP

EG

EG

G

MP

P

M

EG

VP

A8

MP

EP

VP

EG

G

M

EG

EG

VG

EP

M

EG

A9

P

EG

EG

VP

EG

EG

MP

MG

VP

VP

VG

VP

A10

EG

VG

MG

MG

EG

P

MG

VG

MG

P

M

M

A11

EG

EP

MG

EG

M

MG

EG

EG

VG

MP

VP

MG

EP – extremely poor, VP – very poor, P – poor, MP – medium poor, M – medium, MG – medium good, G – good, VG – very good, EG – Extremely good

 

Comment 24: [Line 342] What does T_i declare?

Reply: Sum of weighted elements for benefit criteria  added in Table.

Comment 25: 5. Verification tests and discussion

General note: The results are poorly discussed in this section. The figures need to be explained and interpreted. What do Figures 3 and 4 show?

Reply: In this part, 12x10=120 scenarios were formed in which the weights of all 12 criteria were modeled in the 5-95% interval. The values of the new weights across the scenarios are given in Figure 3. In the initial scenario, which includes criterion weights obtained with the IMF SWARA method, the lowest value is for the tenth criterion (0.021,0.029,0.042), and the highest is for the sixth criterion (0.133,0.143,0.193). In the hundredth scenario, the tenth criterion has the lowest value (0.001, 0.001, 0.002), which means that it tends to zero and that the value of this criterion is reduced to negligible importance. On the other hand, an extreme value is in the 110th scenario for the sixth criterion (0.153,0.167,0.231). It is important to note here that, in this scenario, the minimum value is of the second most significant criterion, and that is C11.

Figure 4 shows the new ranks of the reclamation variants in accordance with the previously simulated new weights of the criteria and their mutual relationship. The results of the sensitivity analysis (Figure 4) show a great influence of changes in weighting coefficients, that is, the sensitivity of initial results in relation to changes in the values of the criteria. The only reclamation alternative, which is ultimately the most important, is A1 - Forestry, which remains in first place regardless of the value of any criterion. Other alternatives change their positions by even several places depending on a scenario. The greatest deviation is for A5 (1.789), which in certain scenarios changes its position by even five places, and this is a consequence of reducing the importance of the second and eighth criteria. It is important to emphasize that the standard deviation (in addition to the first alternative that does not change) is the least for the second best reclamation alternative (A3=0.396) and for the last-ranked alternative (A5=0.416). Other reclamation alternatives change their ranks in most scenarios depending on their performance according to the best criterion.

Comment 26: [Line 376] Where is the sensitivity analysis described?

Reply: The whole 5.1. Changing the weights of the criteria (Sensitivity analysis) subsection represents sensitivity analysis, while it has been best described through the following:

In each MCDM model, criteria play an important role and by simulating their weights through new scenarios it is possible to identify a possible change in the ranks of alternatives [33,34], i.e., in this case, reclamation solutions. Thus, it is possible to include all potential results, their changes and strive towards their proactive management. In this part, 12x10=120 scenarios were formed in which the weights of all 12 criteria were modeled in the 5-95% interval. The values of the new weights across the scenarios are given in Figure 3.

 

Figure 3. Simulated weights through 120 scenarios

In the initial scenario, which includes criterion weights obtained with the IMF SWARA method, the lowest value is for the tenth criterion (0.021,0.029,0.042), and the highest is for the sixth criterion (0.133,0.143,0.193). In the hundredth scenario, the tenth criterion has the lowest value (0.001, 0.001, 0.002), which means that it tends to zero and that the value of this criterion is reduced to negligible importance. On the other hand, an extreme value is in the 110th scenario for the sixth criterion (0.153,0.167,0.231). It is important to note here that, in this scenario, the minimum value is of the second most significant criterion, and that is C11.

Comment 27: [Line 387] The comparative analysis must be described in the text. Figure 5 needs to be described, and its caption needs to be modified to be more representative of its content.

Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. We have adopted it.

The results obtained after comparison with three fuzzy MCDM methods show that there are certain minor deviations that are primarily related to the reclamation solutions that are ranked lower. In all five of 11 in total cases there are changes of positions only for one or two place, for example: A4 has been ranked fourth place with fuzzy ROV, while according to other methods, it has eighth place. The rest of changes are: A8 (8->9), A9 (5->7), A10 (6->5), and A11 (7->6). This confirms the initial results obtained with the IMF SWARA - Fuzzy ROV model.

Figure 5. Ranking of alternatives using four different fuzzy MCDM methods

Comment 28: [Line 400] What does SA show?

Reply: SA - Sensitivity analysis. We have defined it at the first place of appearance 5.1. Changing the weights of the criteria (sensitivity analysis).

6. Conclusion

Comment 29: General comment: The research conclusions need to be described and commented on. Emphasis should be placed on the manuscript's innovative contribution and on the research questions that were answered in the framework of this research. The main conclusions of the research are not presented in this section.

Reply: We have added the following text in the conclusion.

The benefits of the conducted research can be viewed through the prism of engineering aspects and social and mathematical aspects. Advantages include considering almost all possible variants for reclamation surface coal mining, and their integration for specific cases, defining all sustainable inputs for their evaluation, and finally developing a proper integrated mathematical tool for precise determining criteria weights and sorting alternatives. The selection of the right and most suitable sustainable solution for the reclamation of surface coal mining is one of the key social and environmental tasks. In this way, this study can contribute to the achievement of sustainable development goals. The limitations of the study can be manifested by the fact that we consider only coal mining, while the number of experts included in the evaluation process can also be higher also.

Comment 30: [Line 422] “and it is applicable in all areas of decision-making and evaluation of variant solutions”. Where was this proved? How is it supported?

Reply: The answer to this question is obvious because our proposed model can solve any problem with two criteria and two variants at least. Also, another MCDM method can be applied to such problems, but it is a question of its precisity and reliability.

Comment 31: Please check Ref. 5 (Adams, K or Adam, K?)

Reply: Thank you for your observation. We have corrected it.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the revised version, the manuscript has been significantly improved.  

Some suggestions for further improvement:

1. The title still needs to be checked: What is the meaning of “Sustainable Selection“ and “Reclamation Variant“? 

2. Please improve Fig. 1 by using bigger fonts.

 

3. Please add a scale and the north direction in Fig. 3

4. Please add the description of the vertical axis in Figs. 4, 5, and 6.

5. A description of the horizontal axis in Fig. 7 is also needed.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of the English language is needed.

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

In the revised version, the manuscript has been significantly improved.  

 

Some suggestions for further improvement:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Comment 1: The title still needs to be checked: What is the meaning of “Sustainable Selection“ and “Reclamation Variant“? 

Reply: We have changed title. Now is: A Novel Hybrid Fuzzy MCDM Model for Selection of the Most Suitable Land Reclamation Variant at Open-pit Coal Mine.

Comment 2: Please improve Fig. 1 by using bigger fonts.

Reply: Figure 1 has been improved.

Comment 3: Please add a scale and the north direction in Fig. 3

Reply: We have added it.

Comment 4: Please add the description of the vertical axis in Figs. 4, 5, and 6.

Reply: We have corrected it according to your suggestion.

Comment 5: A description of the horizontal axis in Fig. 7 is also needed.

Reply: We have corrected it according to your suggestion.