Computer-Aided Planning for Land Development of Post-Mining Degraded Areas

Abstract

This paper concerns the revitalization of post-mining heaps using a developed software tool. Revitalizing degraded areas is crucial for sustainable development because heaps pose numerous hazards to people and the environment, and there are significant numbers of waste heaps across Europe. The applied approach enables us to consider essential factors when deciding on the heap revitalization strategy. This includes heap properties, assumed land use, and various risks to people and environment, financial, and intangible factors. The methodology addresses various revitalization aims, ranging from heap liquidation to different forms of nature restoration and industrial or energy applications. A computer-aided tool was developed based on this approach, allowing the specification of the revitalized heap and proposed revitalization alternatives. It assesses risk reduction, costs/benefits, and non-financial factors such as social, environmental, technological, and political aspects for each alternative. This provides decision-makers with input to manually select the target alternative for implementation. The revitalization planning process is supported comprehensively, and there are additional cost-, quality-, and time-related advantages due to computer aid. The authors suggest future tool enhancements, especially to extend the range of applications and better formalize the decision process.

1. Introduction

1.1. Research Context and Importance

This paper focuses on post-mining heap revitalization and is associated with the project “Sustainable Use of Mining Waste Dumps,” funded by the European Commission’s Research Fund for Coal and Steel (EC RFCS SUMAD) [1]. Heaps are one of the largest forms of existing land degradation, and there are significant numbers of waste dumps across Europe.

Revitalization activities, promoting positive land changes, allow us to reverse anthropogenic processes related to mining. Heap revitalization encompasses diverse aspects, such as restoring the natural environment, reducing negative impacts on people living around nuisance objects, reclaiming post-mining waste as a resource for manufacturing new materials and products (circular economy), and adopting heaps for new applications, such as energy production. Revitalization activities should have a positive impact on land development, landscaping, the environment, society, and achieving economic goals. All these factors are considered in this paper. Decisions related to the shape of revitalization should consider the interests of different parties representing people living nearby, nature protection authorities, businesses, landowners, etc. Sometimes, these interests have opposing targets.

Revitalization is complicated and expensive, and decisions related to it require a holistic approach and solid planning based on deep knowledge about the recovered objects and their environment. This knowledge encompasses diverse issues from domains such as ecology, geology, mining, hydrology, risk factors, economy, and sociology. It is acquired through measurements, analyses, and experiments and is used as input to make decisions about the shape of the revitalization process.

This paper presents a software tool for planning the revitalization process, which is validated through a heap revitalization planning example. The tool was developed as part of the EU RFCS SUMAD project [1]. The general aim of the SUMAD project is to investigate the possible uses of zones covered by waste material resulting from coal mining with respect to geotechnical, sustainability, environmental, socio-economic, and long-term management challenges. To achieve this goal, it was necessary to apply risk management and advanced modeling to various revitalization schemes. The key issue was the technical feasibility of developing a renewable energy infrastructure. To achieve the maximum possible impact, the necessary input was received from tip operators, developers, and authorities engaged in the project. Case study sites were selected for testing the project concepts [1].

The degradation of areas and objects caused by industry, especially mining, poses challenges for SUMAD RMT, and environmentally friendly development of post-industrial degraded areas requires the mitigation of risks by applying well-planned and balanced revitalization activities.

A previous paper [2] presented the SUMAD risk management methodology and its validation on a near-real case study. This validation, as well as the more extensive validation on the real heap conducted by the SUMAD project partners, was a prerequisite to implementing this methodology in software. Consequently, the SUMAD risk management tool (SUMAD RMT) presented in this article was developed and validated on different objects. This paper presents one such case conducted by the authors. The aim of this validation is to conclude previous works on the software development and identify its improvements for the future, especially related to decision support. The SUMAD approach concerns land cover change and landscape ecology in a broader context, embracing future land use, risks, and financial and non-financial issues (e.g., social, psychological, legal, political, etc.).

The roots of the SUMAD methodology stem from previous ValueSec [3] and CIRAS [4] European projects, in which the authors’ organization actively participated. These projects focus on the effectiveness of security measures with respect to the following factors:

• Risk reduction, achieved by the RRA (risk reduction assessment) component;
• Cost–benefit parameters, achieved by the CBA (cost–benefit assessment) component;
• Soft (intangible) factors, achieved by the QCA (qualitative criteria assessment) component.

This issue is addressed to elaborate on the assessment results for decision-makers responsible for selecting appropriate measures for implementation. The mentioned projects concern the following domains of application: security of public mass events, public mass transportation, air transportation/airport, communal security planning, cybersecurity, and critical infrastructure protection.

SUMAD concerns quite a different domain of application. For this reason, a deep adaptation and validation of the methodology were proposed in [2], relating to the data characteristics, structures, and operations. Readers are encouraged to become familiar with the mentioned paper. The SUMAD methodology, implemented within the SUMAD RMT, encompasses all steps from detailed heap property identifications to the elaboration of data for decision-makers:

• Specification of revitalized heap properties;
• Analysis of the current heap status concerning the inherent risk (RRA) and initial financial (CBA) and non-financial (QCA) parameters;
• Formulating several potential revitalization alternatives for consideration;
• Analysis of the planned status for each alternative, assuming implementation with respect to the residual risk (RRA) and financial (CBA) and non-financial (QCA) parameters;
• Preparing aggregated results of these analyses for decision-makers;
• Selection of the target revitalization alternative for implementation.

The decision process has a heuristic character and is performed manually by decision-makers. They analyze all aggregated information and select the target alternative.

After a brief presentation of the research context and its importance, the next section, Section 1.2, encompasses the research motivation, objectives, and research questions. Then, in Section 1.3, an overview of revitalization planning and decision-supporting methods and their applications, especially in the revitalization domain, is provided. Section 2 (Materials and Methods) addresses two issues. The first (Section 2.1) briefly presents the project of SUMAD RMT software v1.0. The second (Section 2.2) details the research context (i.e., the near-real case study focusing on the development of the revitalization plan for the post-mining heap). This study is closely related to the SUMAD decision-making process, aided by the SUMAD RMT tool. Section 3 summarizes the achieved results; a short discussion is presented on how SUMAD RMT fulfills the SUMAD project requirements, assisting the decision-makers. Section 4 contains a discussion related to research questions. The final section, Section 5, concludes the research and presents advantages, disadvantages, and future works on the tool. Supplementary Materials include screenshots and graphs,, allowing a better understanding of the tool possibilities and processed data.

1.2. Research Motivation, Questions, Objectives

The SUMAD project is interdisciplinary because it encompasses research on diverse issues, including characteristics of post-mining waste dumps in Europe; geotechnical and environmental assessment of heaps; numerical and physical modeling; mechanical behavior of spoil material; ground improvement techniques; foundation systems for objects placed on the heap and monitoring of object behavior; software development; and working out possible revitalization undertakings with respect to various technical, economic, social, political, etc., limitations [1].

The SUMAD project is also innovative because all information gleaned from these different research domains is integrated into a single, three-pillar-based (RRA, CBA, QCA) computer-aided decision framework, enabling the development of revitalization strategies for a given heap. The SUMAD RMT methodology and software tool serve as integrators for this information, utilized as the input for the decision process focused on proposing target revitalization activities. Its innovativeness was confirmed by the project research and the bibliography review in Section 1.3.

The motivation of the presented research is to validate the developed specialized software tool, facilitating the planning process related to post-mining heap revitalization. SUMAD RMT allows decision-makers to control and manage the vast amount of information involved in the decision process. Given the complexity and challenges, providing software support for decision-makers is reasonable. An additional motivation for the authors was to draw conclusions on how the manual decision-making process could be better structured, automated, or improved.

The first research thesis is as follows. It is possible to structure information systematically and implement it in the software tool to formulate rational revitalization alternatives focused on the given post-mining heap regarding risk, financial, and non-financial factors.

The research questions are as follows:

• How can we specify heap properties in a way that is both necessary and sufficient for analysts to identify risk factors as well as economic and non-economic limitations?
• How can we formulate revitalization alternatives?
• How can we identify key information related to risk factors as well as financial and non-financial factors as the input for decision making?

Some of these questions were preliminarily discussed and described in [2], presenting the methodology implemented in SUMAD RMT.

The second research thesis is as follows. It is possible to select the most advantageous revitalization alternative for land development considering the identified factors.

The research questions are as follows:

4.

How can we provide information to decision-makers?

5.

How can we structure the decision process, the outcome of which is the selection of the target revitalization activities?

1.3. Current State of the Research Field

The paper has an interdisciplinary character and addresses specific issues within the SUMAD project domain presented above. It mainly focuses on identifying potential revitalization actions with reference to various technical, economic, social, political, etc., limitations. This matter is broad and implies the following literature review topics:

• Risk management methods/software tools to be applied in the revitalization of post-industrial objects/areas, ecological risk, and other related risks (e.g., geological);
• Cost–benefit assessment, qualitative criteria assessment;
• Assessment methods of revitalization activities, revitalization decision support.

SUMAD RMT is a specific implementation of the widely used general-purpose risk management framework ISO 31000 [5].

The IEC 31010 [6] standard provides several dozen examples of recognized risk techniques that can be applied within the mentioned framework. SUMAD RMT, compliant with ISO 31000, implements the widely used ’consequence/likelihood matrix’ method. It allows the combining of qualitative and semi-quantitative ratings of consequences and likelihood to produce the significance of risk or risk ratings.

The ENISA website [7] presents risk management solutions focused on ICT security, but some of them have a general-purpose character:

• “Interoperable EU Risk Management Framework”: The authors describe and evaluate the interoperability features of 18 recognized risk management frameworks and methods, using a four-level interoperability scale. Detailed features of each risk were evaluated, such as asset or scenario-based, quantitative/qualitative character, asset taxonomy, and valuation, using catalogs of threat, vulnerability, measures, and residual risk level calculation; these features were considered when designing the SUMAD RMT/RRA module, interpreted in the revitalization domain.
• “Interoperable EU Risk Management Toolbox”: This is ENISA’s solution to address interoperability issues related to the use of information security RM methods. The toolbox facilitates the smooth integration of various RM methods in an organization’s environment, allowing a common understanding of risks and reporting interoperable risk assessment results to the community and competent authorities. The “consequence/probability matrix” method is used in this domain. The toolbox is equipped with libraries facilitating the interpretation and mapping of risk parameters.

The monograph in [8] discusses risk-related terms, representative methods, and tools. This extensive book is useful when implementing risk methods in software.

To conclude this part of the review, the SUMAD RMT tool is based on international, acceptable risk management standards.

The potential risk-related events considered in SUMAD RMT are diversified and broad compared to other methods and tools. Most of them pertain to ecological risks, such as those arising from natural events (flooding, extreme weather conditions, etc.), technology, revitalization practices, processes, products, agents (chemical, biological, radiological, etc.), and industrial activities that can significantly impact ecosystems, people, and the economy.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [9] has established guidelines to improve the quality and consistency of EPA’s ecological risk assessments. The EPA framework embraces the following:

• Problem formulation (consideration of endpoints, stressors, or ecological effects) and elaboration of the analysis plan; assessment endpoints include protected environmental values, defined by an ecological object and its properties;
• An analysis focused on the characterization of exposure and ecological effects;
• Risk characterization and summary;
• Risk management and communication.

The EPA method focuses on typical ecological risk assessment, not on the specific heap revitalization issues implied by the SUMAD project assumptions. There is also a need to develop the revitalization activities (meaning iterative risk management, not assessment only) in consideration of technical, financial, human, and other factors.

The Sustainable Management Approaches and Revitalization Tool—electronic (SMARTe) [10], ref. [11] is the result of the former bilateral (USA–Germany) ecological initiative with EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) participation. SMARTe (Neptune) is a web-based and open-source tool that supports the decisions of brownfield revitalization stakeholders. This mature tool can be used to create and evaluate future reuse scenarios in the process of revitalizing potentially contaminated sites. The tool is maintained by the Neptune company, which provides different tool-based ecological services, including environmental modeling, decision making, quality assurance, and risk management focused on ecological, health, asbestos, and radiological risks. SMARTe is dedicated to brownfield revitalizations, whereas SUMAD has been developed specifically for heap revitalization.

The author of [12] reviews the development of the ecological risk assessment paradigm in the United States, as well as its applications and adaptations in other countries.

An extensive review of models related to ecological risk assessment (ERA) was provided in [13]. The models show how certain stressors impact the environment and imply immediate or prolonged damage or even irreparable and permanent harm to an ecosystem. There are three basic categories of system-based ERA models: food web-based, ecosystem-based, and socio-ecological. The authors integrated them into one framework for system-based ecological risk assessment, similar to the general EPA model. The integrated model differs from the approach implemented in SUMAD RMT and concerns other domains of application.

There are some papers concerning brownfield revitalizations. The US EPA three-part primer [14] concerns cleanup for the redevelopment of brownfield sites. Part 1 presents basic issues and implemented remediation approaches, part 2 deals with coal mine remediation, and part 3 focuses on hard rock mine redevelopment. Information concerning the specification of revitalized areas, contamination at mine sites, planning of the revitalization process, legal and financial considerations, etc., may be useful in the SUMAD framework, although this information does not concern heaps directly. The primer in [14] also considers safety, engineering, and environmental issues. Some of these issues, related to spoiled ground, water, and heap properties, can be envisaged in the SUMAD RMT database. This primer also presents several successful revitalization projects and the revitalization techniques that can be used on the heaps.

TRIAD [15,16] is a dynamic and collaborative knowledge platform allowing the elaboration of plans to clean up mine sites.

Two expert-based risk assessment methods are implemented in the DISESOR [17] decision support system. The system also uses a data-driven analysis approach to identify hazards.

The book in [18] discusses ecological risk management. It also features current directions of research on risk assessment and management frameworks.

The authors of [19] propose a framework whose aim is the assessment of preliminary risk (i.e., the risk before brownfield reclamation). The framework deals with complex hazards and legal issues. The authors were able to identify 65 potential hazards, which were then assessed by domain experts. The results allowed the formulation of a framework designed to perform an initial assessment of brownfield objects. The SUMAD framework deals with a thorough assessment in the dedicated domain (heaps).

The book in [20] is an extensive source of knowledge about ecological risk management, including vast risk factors. Although this book does not specifically address the reclamation of heaps, it can serve as a helpful source of information for SUMAD RMT users investigating very specific ecological issues or developing revitalization plans.

The book in [21] discusses recent trends in environmental risk management, describing several cases concerning contamination, remediation, and applied technologies. Some rehabilitation technologies from the book are considered for heaps in the SUMAD project.

Risk factors in brownfield redevelopment are a core issue in [22]. The authors identify and group these factors into categories: technical risks, economic and political factors, environmental aspects, managerial considerations, and financial factors. Some risk cases from these categories can be applied in SUMAD RMT.

Two kinds of analytical tools for environmental management are discussed in [23]: the life cycle assessment (LCA) tool and the risk assessment (RA) tool. LCA focuses on how the product interacts with the environment at different life stages and is related to the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS). However, the authors do not consider the financial and non-financial factors in risk management, which are paramount in the SUMAD project.

There are some papers concerning geotechnical risk assessment and mine-related risks. For example, the Swedish Report [24] presents a methodology dealing with geotechnical risks related to the ground and representing phenomena with disadvantageous impacts on the projects. This methodology, if properly adapted, can serve as guidelines in SUMAD.

The article in [25] deals with the analysis of theoretical and applied aspects of ecological risk management in coal mining and processing organizations, including the identification of risks, assessment of related probability and damages, evaluation of technological and organizational methods and measures to reduce and avoid ecological risks, and decision making about the selection of risk management and control measures that should be applied.

The subsoil state and its influence on the constructed object are discussed in [26].

A risk concept that can be applied in real-time analysis and to provide a measure of the risk levels is presented in [27] in the context of projects I2Mine (FP7 Intelligent Deep Mine of the Future) and DynaMine (Dynamic Control of Underground Mining Operations). SUMAD RMT is based not only on risk reduction assessment but also on cost–benefit and qualitative assessment methods.

The cost–benefit assessment methodology is broadly used in business analytics and defined as the comparison of the expected costs and benefits (or opportunities) to determine whether a certain project makes sense from a business perspective [28]. It allows the estimation of the strong and weak points of the considered object. This technique makes it possible to identify the options for a given application domain and draw up the best approach for the domain (i.e., the one most likely to bring benefits in terms of labor, time, costs savings, etc.) [29]. The CBA method is enumerated and characterized as one of the risk analysis methods in the ISO/IEC 31010 standard [6]. It weighs the total expected costs of options against their total expected benefits in order to choose the most effective or profitable option, considered in monetary terms and over longer time horizons. For this reason, monetary values should be recalculated in “today’s money”. The parameters used include PVC (present value of all costs), PVB (present value of benefits), and NPV (net present value). NPV is calculated as NPV = PVB − PVC. The analyzed option with NPV > 0 might be a suitable option. Cost–benefit assessment is broadly used in management, for example:

• To select the appropriate options on the strategic or operational level;
• To make decisions based on risk, that is, whether to mitigate a certain risk, which option is the best to treat a given risk case (the most relevant application to SUMAD RMT), and which risk treatment option is the best—a short- or long-term option.

The assessment of intangible factors related to revitalization activities in SUMAD RMT is based on utility functions (UFs). A utility function expresses “individual preferences for goods or services beyond the explicit monetary value of those goods or services. In other words, it calculates how much someone desires something, and it is relative” [30]. The SUMAD team elaborated a set of qualitative criteria for post-mining heap revitalization activities during project research, using the criteria from the ValueSec project [3,31] as input. This was challenging due to the considerable differences in both domains of application. The identified criteria were then implemented in the QCA tool developed from scratch.

In the literature, one can find papers on multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) applications in the revitalization domain.

The paper in [32] focuses on restoring continuous surface lignite mines in the closure phase, evaluating alternatives for restoration technologies with regard to risk and various environmental, technical, economic, and social parameters. The goal is to select a lower-risk restoration technology. The decision-making process employs a multi-criteria methodology, combining the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) [33] and the technique for order of preference by similarity to the ideal solution (TOPSIS) [34]. Risk issues presented in [32] are considered in SUMAD and included in three SUMAD pillars: RRA, CBA, and QCA, with three different analyses applied.

The authors of [35] research the revitalization of western Macedonia lignite mines using the PEST (political, economic, social, and technological) method. PEST is based on a framework of macro-environmental factors. The method is commonly used for business analysis, which takes into account political, economic, social, and technological factors, as well as legal, ecological, demographic, etc., factors. The research in [35] features seven land use cases (alternatives): agriculture, livestock farming, forests, greenhouses, recreational activities, photovoltaic parks, and urban and industrial development.

These use cases are assessed (pros and cons) with respect to criteria such as max revenues, min investment, max conservation of nature, and max equity, considering the political, economic, social, and technological features.

Although this approach shares some similarities with SUMAD, differences exist in the domain of application and methodology. However, some alternative combinations or arrangements of components or criteria may find application in the methodology described in the paper.

The paper in [36] focuses on PV (photovoltaic) installations on abandoned dumps. The authors discuss hazards related to dumps, such as ground movements, fires, etc., and identify different criteria to assess the possibility of PV implementation:

• Environmental factors: visual impacts, wildlife impacts, land use intensity, depletion of natural resources, reflection effects, and waste management;
• Technical factors: the vicinity of the PV installation to power lines, available sunlight hours, restrictions due to ground slope, and solar resources;
• Economic factors related to technical issues, land use, and others.

That paper shares many similarities with the SUMAD project. The research suggests that PV installation is among the best solutions for both the environment and the economy.

In [37], an AHP-based methodology is employed to design the revitalization of post-mining regions, such as heaps, voids, and technical infrastructure, all impacted by mining activities. The AHP process aims to reject extreme concepts and find an optimal way to revitalize post-mining objects. In the SUMAD project, potential regeneration techniques are assessed based on risk assessment (including the identification of threats and vulnerabilities), cost and financial benefit assessment (significant for landowners and potential investors), and the assessment of qualitative (soft) factors, the so-called qualitative criteria, which would be supplemented by the AHP assessment. The SUMAD factors differ from those described in the paper [37].

The paper in [38] describes waterfront revitalization oriented toward tourist purposes and presents a dedicated decision support tool. It provides an extensive review of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods as candidates to assess waterfront revitalization, including SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats), PPM (photo-projective method), ANN (artificial neural network), and AHP (analytic hierarchy process). These methods are compared with one another with respect to the criteria. The authors did not identify dedicated methods for waterfront revitalization, so they developed their own AHP-based method and tool. A detailed review of functionalities of different types of waterfronts and literature identified 15 features for tourist attractions [38]. Three groups of features used as AHP criteria are distinguished: social and cultural revitalization, physical and environmental revitalization, and economic and functional revitalization. Each criterion has several sub-criteria assigned.

These criteria can be used to formulate heap revitalization criteria to extend SUMAD RMT possibilities. This is analogous to a QCA assessment (criteria), but the methods differ (AHP approach versus UF, utility function, approach). The method presented in the paper [38] was fully validated for a real waterfront by domain experts.

The paper in [39] presents a risk management framework for urban regeneration projects, introducing the analytic network process (ANP) and using the PEST criteria. The defined risk criteria are associated with PEST factors. During validation, a case study of a residential and commercial mixed-use project in Liverpool City Centre is used.

The paper in [40], related to the “Deira Enrichment Project”, concerns urban regeneration, particularly the stagnated older parts of Dubai city. The paper aims to investigate planning elements grouped by urban environment, economic, social/cultural, and transportation sectors. The AHP process conducted with domain experts was applied to identify the weights of sectors and their elements, serving as the basic data for sustainable urban regeneration in Dubai. The paper presents a comprehensive example of how to use the AHP method; however, the domain differs from that in the SUMAD project.

SUMAD RMT operates on its own, domain-related knowledge base. No ready-made data related to heap revitalization, including heap properties, risk, financial, and non-financial factors, are available. The knowledge base was identified by the SUMAD project team.

Neither of the reviewed approaches considers three kinds of factors: mixed-risk, financial, and non-financial. Moreover, neither of them addresses the revitalization of post-mining heaps. The domain data are identified during research provided by the SUMAD consortium and literature search. These data will be used to predefine threats, vulnerabilities, scenarios, risk measures, and revitalization techniques. The tool that bears the most similarities to SUMAD RMT is SMARTe; however, it does not deal with SUMAD’s specific domain (i.e., heap revitalization).

2. Materials and Methods

The broad context of the paper, including waste dump characteristics and relations to mining activities, the importance of revitalization, revitalization directions and limitations, risk issues, etc., is detailed in the SUMAD handbook [41]. Readers are encouraged to consult this handbook for additional information on the subject.

2.1. Computer-Aided Tool Development

The SUMAD methodology was validated by the project team on a real heap example and a simplified near-real revitalization object discussed in [2]. The validation results allow the implementation of the SUMAD methodology in the software tool (i.e., SUMAD RMT). The software development process and the applied technology were typical for such applications and are not discussed in the paper.

The paper in [2] (Section 2.1) outlines the fundamental expectations to be considered by the SUMAD methodology, focusing on post-mining heap revitalization. These expectations concern the software tool based on this methodology, facilitating the planning of the revitalization process. The individual methodology features imply a set of software modules implemented within SUMAD RMT, presented in Figure 1. It includes a UML (Unified Modeling Language) component diagram of the SUMAD RMT software. Information flows between software components are also presented. The following expectations are considered ([2] (Section 2.1)):

• “Heaps may pose various risks to their environment, particularly to people living in the surrounding areas. These risks should be properly analyzed and mitigated by proper revitalization activities”.
  The RRA module of SUMAD RMT assists in managing risk related to the heap and its environment and to the proposed revitalization activities, addressing Research Question 3.
• “Heaps generate different costs and sometimes, especially after their revitalization, certain benefits”.
  Identifying and planning these costs and benefits are facilitated by the CBA module of SUMAD RMT. Commonly used financial indicators are also implemented within the module, addressing Research Question 3.
• “Heaps are burdensome on the environment and for people living in surrounding areas. Many diversified issues are challenging to express as risk or financial categories, having a social, political, and psychological character, among others”.
  These intangible factors are assessed with the use of the QCA module of SUMAD RMT, addressing Research Question 3.
• “These complex multidirectional analyses (RRA, CBA, QCA) should be referenced to the unified heap specification, which embraces the extensive and diversified set of parameters characterizing the revitalized object and its environment (localization, owners, morphology, geology, pollutants, etc.)”.
  The HP (heap property) module of the tool provides this information, addressing Research Question 1.
• “During the revitalization process, a package of diversified ERTs (elementary revitalization techniques) should be applied. Decision-makers can define several packages of ERTs called revitalization alternatives (RVAs) in this paper. These RVAs are subjects of the RRA, CBA, and QCA analyses”.
  To manage the RVAs effectively, the RAC module (revitalization alternative composer) is designed, addressing Research Question 2.
• “The number of terms related to the analyses that lead to the selection of the target RVA (threats/hazards, vulnerabilities, consequences, elementary revitalization techniques, costs–benefits categories, QCA categories) is substantial, and it would be troublesome for decision-makers to define them each time manually, ad hoc”.
  The PDM (predefined data manager) knowledge base is established, addressing common issues for Research Questions 2, 3, and 4.
• “The results obtained from RRA, QCA, and CBA analyses are relatively complicated. They should be aggregated and properly presented to decision-makers”.
  The DMAV (data management, aggregation, and visualization) software module aids in organizing input information for decision-makers, addressing Research Questions 2, 3, and 5.
• “Assessments of risk factors (likelihood, consequences) during the risk analysis (RRA) are burdened by uncertainty. To reduce this uncertainty and to increase the accuracy of the analyses, a historical database that includes past heap incidents may be very helpful”.
  This is aided by the HEIR (heap-related events and incidents registration) module, addressing Research Question 3.
• The above basic modules and their users should be properly managed.
  The common module assists in administration, user access control, management, and reporting functionalities.
• Decisions aiming at the selection of the target revitalization alternative for implementation are made manually according to the SUMAD project assumptions. No dedicated functionality aiding the decision process, like the AHP tool, for example, is built into the SUMAD RMT. However, decision-makers can use all analysis results (detailed and aggregated) in the informal decision process. Decision-makers work iteratively, modifying unsatisfactory alternatives and reanalyzing them until the set of reasonable alternatives is formulated and the selection of the target one is possible. The revitalization plan is generated on request at any time. All these issues concern Research Questions 4 and 5.

Figure 1. A component diagram of the SUMAD RMT software tool showing particular software modules and information transferred between them.

Figure 1. A component diagram of the SUMAD RMT software tool showing particular software modules and information transferred between them.

Please note that each UML component represents a modular part of a system responsible for specific functionality. The component behavior is defined in terms of required and provided interfaces, simplified here to the type of information exchanged between components.

The overarching research question is whether all these expectations are met not only by the SUMAD methodology (as discussed in [2]) but also by SUMAD RMT. This can be addressed during the validation of the tool.

2.2. Computer-Aided Tool Validation

The validation case aims to check whether the software tool fulfills all project needs and expectations.

The SUMAD methodology integrated into the tool includes the following main steps:

• Establishing the revitalization project, recognizing the revitalized waste dump, and identifying past revitalization activities;
• Initial RRA, CBA, and QCA analyses to identify the starting point of the revitalization plan;
• Formulating the proposed revitalization alternatives;
• Assessing the composed revitalization alternatives regarding risk, financial, and non-financial factors;
• Manual decision making based on the results of assessments.

This process, facilitated by SUMAD RMT, provides evidence and arguments for decision-makers based on the results of analyses and calculations.

Decision making is the final stage of the presented methodology, preceded by several steps to gather input data for decisions. Decisions focus on the concrete object—a heap, requiring the identification of its properties and preparation of a unified heap specification. The greater the depth of understanding related to the decision object, the more effective the decision is likely to be. This knowledge primarily encompasses heap properties and behavior (Research Question 1), as well as risk factors and financial and non-financial issues (Research Question 3).

Research Question 1: How can we specify heap properties so that they will be necessary and sufficient for analysts to identify risk factors as well as economic and non-economic limitations?

The validation example is based on a hypothetical heap (HH), similar to the one presented in [2]. The HH is near-real but reduced compared to the study included in the paper.

Usually, various heap-related documents, such as “HH description” or “land use plan”, are sampled and analyzed at the beginning of the revitalization project. These textual descriptions allow the identification of heap features, risks, and past revitalization activities, which will be expressed in a more structured way within the tool.

In the validation example, these items are marked by tags:

• RSn means risk scenario (discussed below), implied by the given sentence of the heap description.
• ERTm means elementary revitalization technique (discussed below), related to the given sentence of the heap description. Each revitalization alternative (RVA) includes a set of ERTs.

An analyst’s activity concerns the identification and structurization of input information for the decision process facilitated by SUMAD RMT.

These tags are introduced by the analyst as “text markers” when he/she has identified risk scenarios and historical revitalization activities.

The hypothetical heap description can be expressed as follows [2]:

The mining HH waste landfill, relatively young {RS3} (risk scenario, explained further, implied by this sentence), was established in the period 1986–2010.

The waste consistency is characterized as a mixture of roof rocks, floor rocks, and coal overgrowth, and the vast majority are represented by clay stones, stigmaria soils, clay siderites, occasionally mudstones and—rarely—sandstones. The main heap materials are gravel, loam, and shales and have rather poor geological parameters {RS3}, {RS7}, {RS8}. On the eastern slope, a certain amount of coal waste is included {RS5}, {RS6}, {RS9}.

The waste has the following shape parameters:

• Area: 90 [ha];
• Average angle of slope: from 1:3 to 1:6;
• Height: ca. 30 [m];
• Volume: 30 million [m³].

HH is situated in a zone where the concentrations of SO₂, NO₂, CO, and benzene do not exceed the lower assessment threshold, while the concentration of PM10 dust is between the upper and lower assessment thresholds.

The main pollutants are water-reactive materials, such as CaO, MgO, K, and Na, inorganic toxins, such as As, Ba, and Pb, and organic toxins, such as carbon tetrachloride and chloroform {RS8}.

Rare vegetation {RS1}, {RS2} includes the natural succession of shrubs and rushes. Wildlife mostly includes amphibians, landfowl, waterfowl, and small herbivore mammals.

Surrounding water features an artificial watercourse reservoir flowing along the southern foot of HH, a drainage ditch running from SW to NE, a small natural lake, and a catchment of three small rivers.

The annual meteorological average data are as follows:

• Wind: 2.0–5.3 [m/s], with the dominant wind direction being south;
• Rainfall: 630 [mm], with oversized rain during the summer {RS2}, {RS7};
• Insolation: 1060 to 1110 [kWh/m²];
• Temperature: 8.1 [°C]; in this region, a high amplitude of annual temperatures is observed {RS1}.

The agricultural landscape surrounds HH with a small share of forest communities. On the eastern side of the heap, 600 m from its edge, there are residential buildings of farms, warehouses, railways, local roads, and, further away, a shopping center. There are no cultural heritage objects within the environmental impact. Sometimes illegal moto-crossing is organized {RS4}.

Limited past revitalization actions involve the following:

• Leveling of degraded areas, concrete production {ERT1} (elementary revitalization technique, explained further, derived from this sentence);
• Ad hoc partial afforestation {ERT2};
• Soil cleaning {ERT3}.

The SUMAD methodology has an iterative character, meaning that some steps can be repeated many times until all revitalization alternatives are completed and ranked as reasonable to consider them as input to the decision process. For example:

• It is possible to add or replace the ERTs in alternatives to enrich their application properties, reduce risk, raise social perception, modify costs, etc.;
• It is necessary to reassess risk and financial and non-financial parameters after the modification of an alternative;
• It is possible to compose quite new alternatives (e.g., compromise) because the currently considered alternatives are not viable.

Special attention should be given to unacceptable risk scenarios, which should be properly managed by modifying RVA related to them. The methodology was demonstrated by examples related to the revitalization process with the use of SUMAD RMT.

SUMAD RMT is able to manage numerous revitalization projects. Each project has its manager and team. Some project team members, who have restricted privileges, are referred to as “observers”. The project initialization also encompasses the configuration of parameters for RRA, CBA, and QCA. For example, risk value (RV) is calculated as the product of likelihood (L) and consequences (C), where:

• Likelihood is assessed with the use of four levels: Nearly impossible (=1), Low (=2), High (=3), Almost certain (=4); levels have their frequency interpretations.
• Consequences are assessed with the use of four levels as well: Negligible (=1), Low (=2), High (=3), Critical (=4); levels have their loss interpretations.

This means that the risk value RV = L × C is in the range from 1 to 16. It was assumed that:

• RV from 1 to 4 is “Acceptable” risk—it will be marked green in the risk matrix;
• RV = 6 or 8 or 9 is “Tolerable” (usually monitored)—marked yellow;
• RV = 12 or 16 is “Not acceptable” (should be mitigated)—marked red.

For CBA, the time horizon, financial categories, and discount rate are important, whereas for QCA, categories and utility functions (a shape of the impact curve) are cardinal.

The validation case started with the identification of the heap properties and the current heap revitalization status, termed the revitalization alternative ‘zero’ RVA0. It encompasses the revitalization activities after implementation in the past. RVA0 also represents the strategy “Do nothing further”, discussed below. In this state, the heap implies certain, usually unacceptable risk, generates costs, brings almost no benefits, and is burdensome for people living around it and for the natural environment. This is the reference point for other revitalization activities and analyses.

Figure 2 presents the heap structural specification, which is elaborated based on the textual description placed above. The left panel presents the heap and its revitalization alternatives (discussed later). The middle panel shows a part of a tree structure of the heap properties. The right panel features details concerning the highlighted category “organic pollutants”. Parameters have a tree structure and are expressed by textual, numerical, or enumerative values.

More details about heap parameters, including their structure and format, were presented in ([2] (Section 2.1)). SUMAD RMT offers a configurable hierarchical structure to specify precisely all relevant heap properties. This way, decision-makers obtain a very detailed and structured specification of the revitalized object for the decision process (Research Question 1).

The ad hoc revitalized heap HH/RVA0 undergoes RRA, CBA, and QCA analyses. Depending on their results, the planned land use, and stakeholders’ expectations, several revitalization alternatives are developed for further analyses. In this case study, the planned RVAs are listed in Figure 2 (left panel) and will be detailed later:

• RVA0 “Do nothing further”, serving as the reference point;
• RVA1 “Energy production based on PV technology and wind turbines”;
• RVA2 “Simple greenery”;
• RVA3 “Active recreation”;
• RVA4 “Heap liquidation by using the heap material elsewhere”.

Each alternative is a subset of the ERTs (elementary revitalization techniques), following the SUMAD project assumptions. The presented alternatives are based on those defined in [2], with their number increased here.

Table 1. RVA0—Current revitalization activities—Do nothing further.

Label	Elementary Revitalization Techniques
ERT1	Reducing the heap volume (by ca. 10% and using this material for leveling external degraded areas and concrete production)
ERT2	Forest (partial afforestation)
ERT3	Soil cleaning (experimental)

specifies the current revitalization status, including three historically implemented techniques. RVA0 represents the “Do nothing further” strategy and will serve as the reference status for other alternatives.

At this stage, a thorough iterative process is undertaken to define and refine RVAs based on the analysis of risk, financial, and non-financial (intangible) issues until the final shape of RVAs is elaborated. These activities are related to the following research questions:

Research Question 3: How can we identify key information related to risk factors as well as financial and non-financial factors as the input for decision making?

The inherent risk analysis performed by the RRA tool for RVA0 has identified the following risk levels: 4 “Acceptable”, 2 “Tolerable”, and 3 “Not acceptable”. These are expressed by risk scenarios (threat/hazard—vulnerability pair implying impacts):

RS <Threat/hazard, Vulnerability> ⇒ Impact.

For the purposes of the paper, all these scenarios are considered and managed by the proposed ERTs (as “controls/measures“ in the risk management methodology). The identified risk scenarios are numbered here as in the paper in [2]:

• RS1 <Cyclic heating, Surface erosion> ⇒ Heap surface deformation;
• RS2: <Oversized rain, Splash erosion> ⇒ Slope deformation;
• RS3 <Settlement, Low geotechnical parameters> ⇒ Instable heap surface;
• RS4 <Quads racing, Uncontrolled access> ⇒ Slope instability, Landslides, Human casualties;
• RS5 <Smoldering, Possible spontaneous combustion from coal> ⇒ Detrimental odors and a nuisance to nearby residents;
• RS6 <Coal theft, Coal availability> ⇒ Uncontrolled destruction of slopes or surface,
• RS7 <Cyclic wetting, Underground water suffusion> ⇒ Subsidence basins around the heap, Increased soil moisture, Increased 1st aquifer;
• RS8 <Toxic materials, Underground water suffusion> ⇒ Landfill leachate containing dangerous substances, Groundwater pollution;
• RS9 <Spontaneous combustion, Possible spontaneous combustion from coal> ⇒ Burning down the buildings around the heap.

The subsequent activities concern the following question:

Research Question 2: How can we formulate the revitalization alternatives?

Generally, the heap causes many problems that should be addressed through revitalization activities. According to the SUMAD methodology and future land use, the heap owner and other interested parties should plan the revitalization process, considering several revitalization alternatives (RVAi), where i = [1…N − 1], enumerated above and shown in Figure 2 (left panel).

RVAs are elaborated iteratively in several steps. Initially, the aforementioned risk cases should be managed (through mitigation, avoidance, etc.) for any planned RVAs, allowing the addition in the next step of the ERTs (applications) that are useful for them. Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 specify the RVAs, including groups of ERTs:

• ERTs used to reduce inherent risk, to improve the heap property—generally to prepare the heap for subsequent revitalization activities; it is assumed that they are common for all RVAs here (a simplification);
• ERTs specifying the planned revitalization applications usable for people, the environment, and businesses (planned land use);
• ERTs supplementing the planned revitalization applications (should be implemented to reduce risk related to the previous ones and be auxiliary for them).

Please note that to describe the RVAs in a unified way, the ERTs belonging to RVA0 are added to all RVAs at the beginning.

The alternative RVA1 has a technical character and is focused on energy production and basic activities toward natural environment protection. People will have restricted access to the revitalized object, except for educational excursions. Some income is expected from selling the energy and improving the local energy balance.

Table 2. RVA1—Energy production based on PV technology and wind turbines.

ERT	Influenced RS	Elementary Revitalization Techniques
1. Implemented ad hoc in the past, included in RVA0
ERT1		Reducing the heap volume (by ca. 10% and using this material for leveling external degraded areas and concrete production)
ERT2		Forest (partial afforestation)
ERT3		Soil cleaning (experimental)
2. Common elementary revitalization techniques—risk mitigation and heap improvement, adaptation
ERT4	RS5, RS6, RS9	Coal recovery (from the eastern slope)
ERT5	RS4, RS6	Fence (and access control)
ERT6	RS8	Pollution elimination (permanent control of toxic substances release)
ERT7	RS8, RS3	Soil cleaning, ground improvement
ERT8	RS2	Revegetation (afforestation)
ERT9	RS7	General improvement of hydraulic conditions (drainage, flow management, pipelines)
ERT10	RS2	Reprofiling slopes (and monitoring them)
3. Specific to the planned usable revitalization applications
ERT1-1		Photovoltaic (PV) installation (on the south slope)
ERT1-2		Wind turbines (on the top area of the heap)
4. Supplementing the planned revitalization applications (should be implemented to reduce risk related to the previous ones and be auxiliary for them)
ERT1-3		Reprofiling slopes (profiling and reinforcing slopes for PV installation)
ERT1-4		Reinforced foundations for wind turbines and other building facilities
ERT1-5		Establishing technical infrastructure (roads, media, buildings, …) for energy production facilities
ERT1-6		Energy network, equipment
ERT1-7		Greenery around

Table 2. RVA1—Energy production based on PV technology and wind turbines.

ERT	Influenced RS	Elementary Revitalization Techniques
1. Implemented ad hoc in the past, included in RVA0
ERT1		Reducing the heap volume (by ca. 10% and using this material for leveling external degraded areas and concrete production)
ERT2		Forest (partial afforestation)
ERT3		Soil cleaning (experimental)
2. Common elementary revitalization techniques—risk mitigation and heap improvement, adaptation
ERT4	RS5, RS6, RS9	Coal recovery (from the eastern slope)
ERT5	RS4, RS6	Fence (and access control)
ERT6	RS8	Pollution elimination (permanent control of toxic substances release)
ERT7	RS8, RS3	Soil cleaning, ground improvement
ERT8	RS2	Revegetation (afforestation)
ERT9	RS7	General improvement of hydraulic conditions (drainage, flow management, pipelines)
ERT10	RS2	Reprofiling slopes (and monitoring them)
3. Specific to the planned usable revitalization applications
ERT1-1		Photovoltaic (PV) installation (on the south slope)
ERT1-2		Wind turbines (on the top area of the heap)
4. Supplementing the planned revitalization applications (should be implemented to reduce risk related to the previous ones and be auxiliary for them)
ERT1-3		Reprofiling slopes (profiling and reinforcing slopes for PV installation)
ERT1-4		Reinforced foundations for wind turbines and other building facilities
ERT1-5		Establishing technical infrastructure (roads, media, buildings, …) for energy production facilities
ERT1-6		Energy network, equipment
ERT1-7		Greenery around

RVA2 encompasses basic activities toward natural environment protection. No income is expected, and the operational costs after revitalization are minimized.

Table 3. RVA2—Simple greenery.

ERT	Influenced RS	Elementary Revitalization Techniques
1. Implemented ad hoc in the past, included in RVA0
ERT1		Reducing the heap volume (by ca. 10% and using this material for leveling external degraded areas and concrete production)
ERT2		Forest (partial afforestation)
ERT3		Soil cleaning (experimental)
2. Common elementary revitalization techniques—risk mitigation and heap improvement, adaptation
ERT4	RS5, RS6, RS9	Coal recovery (from the eastern slope)
ERT5	RS4, RS6	Fence (and access control)
ERT6	RS8	Pollution elimination (permanent control of toxic substances release)
ERT7	RS8, RS3	Soil cleaning, ground improvement
ERT8	RS2	Revegetation (afforestation)
ERT9	RS7	General improvement of hydraulic conditions (drainage, flow management, pipelines)
ERT10	RS2	Reprofiling slopes (and monitoring them)
3. Specific to the planned usable revitalization applications
ERT2-1		Forest
ERT2-2		Greenery
4. Supplementing the planned revitalization applications (should be implemented to reduce risk related to the previous ones and be auxiliary for them)
ERT2-3		Roads and trails for inspections and emergency fire brigades
ERT2-4		Basic fire protection measures and monitoring

Table 3. RVA2—Simple greenery.

ERT	Influenced RS	Elementary Revitalization Techniques
1. Implemented ad hoc in the past, included in RVA0
ERT1		Reducing the heap volume (by ca. 10% and using this material for leveling external degraded areas and concrete production)
ERT2		Forest (partial afforestation)
ERT3		Soil cleaning (experimental)
2. Common elementary revitalization techniques—risk mitigation and heap improvement, adaptation
ERT4	RS5, RS6, RS9	Coal recovery (from the eastern slope)
ERT5	RS4, RS6	Fence (and access control)
ERT6	RS8	Pollution elimination (permanent control of toxic substances release)
ERT7	RS8, RS3	Soil cleaning, ground improvement
ERT8	RS2	Revegetation (afforestation)
ERT9	RS7	General improvement of hydraulic conditions (drainage, flow management, pipelines)
ERT10	RS2	Reprofiling slopes (and monitoring them)
3. Specific to the planned usable revitalization applications
ERT2-1		Forest
ERT2-2		Greenery
4. Supplementing the planned revitalization applications (should be implemented to reduce risk related to the previous ones and be auxiliary for them)
ERT2-3		Roads and trails for inspections and emergency fire brigades
ERT2-4		Basic fire protection measures and monitoring

RVA3 is focused on nature and recreation purposes. Minimal incomes are expected, but instead, people can use many attractions. This alternative aims to have a positive impact on social cohesion. However, it raises maintenance costs, and local financial support may be necessary.

Table 4. RVA3—Active recreation.

ERT	Influenced RS	Elementary Revitalization Techniques
1. Implemented ad hoc in the past, included in RVA0
ERT1		Reducing the heap volume (by ca. 10% and using this material for leveling external degraded areas and concrete production)
ERT2		Forest (partial afforestation)
ERT3		Soil cleaning (experimental)
2. Common elementary revitalization techniques—risk mitigation and heap improvement, adaptation
ERT4	RS5, RS6, RS9	Coal recovery (from the eastern slope)
ERT5	RS4, RS6	Fence (and access control)
ERT6	RS8	Pollution elimination (permanent control of toxic substances release)
ERT7	RS8, RS3	Soil cleaning, ground improvement
ERT8	RS2	Revegetation (afforestation)
ERT9	RS7	General improvement of hydraulic conditions (drainage, flow management, pipelines)
ERT10	RS2	Reprofiling slopes (and monitoring them)
3. Specific to the planned usable revitalization applications
ERT3-1		Educational excursions
ERT3-2		Bicycle paths
ERT3-3		Ski tracks
ERT3-4		Park
ERT3-5		Biodiversity hotspot
ERT3-6		Ponds
ERT3-7		PV installation and apiary (bee-garden)
ERT3-8		Recreational facilities for visitors: bars, restaurants, a small hotel, and a bandstand for musical events
4. Supplementing the planned revitalization applications (should be implemented to reduce risk related to the previous ones and be auxiliary for them)
ERT3-9		Technical infrastructure—roads, tracks, media, buildings, parking
ERT3-10		Reinforced foundations for some building facilities
ERT3-11		Advanced fire protection measures and monitoring

Table 4. RVA3—Active recreation.

ERT	Influenced RS	Elementary Revitalization Techniques
1. Implemented ad hoc in the past, included in RVA0
ERT1		Reducing the heap volume (by ca. 10% and using this material for leveling external degraded areas and concrete production)
ERT2		Forest (partial afforestation)
ERT3		Soil cleaning (experimental)
2. Common elementary revitalization techniques—risk mitigation and heap improvement, adaptation
ERT4	RS5, RS6, RS9	Coal recovery (from the eastern slope)
ERT5	RS4, RS6	Fence (and access control)
ERT6	RS8	Pollution elimination (permanent control of toxic substances release)
ERT7	RS8, RS3	Soil cleaning, ground improvement
ERT8	RS2	Revegetation (afforestation)
ERT9	RS7	General improvement of hydraulic conditions (drainage, flow management, pipelines)
ERT10	RS2	Reprofiling slopes (and monitoring them)
3. Specific to the planned usable revitalization applications
ERT3-1		Educational excursions
ERT3-2		Bicycle paths
ERT3-3		Ski tracks
ERT3-4		Park
ERT3-5		Biodiversity hotspot
ERT3-6		Ponds
ERT3-7		PV installation and apiary (bee-garden)
ERT3-8		Recreational facilities for visitors: bars, restaurants, a small hotel, and a bandstand for musical events
4. Supplementing the planned revitalization applications (should be implemented to reduce risk related to the previous ones and be auxiliary for them)
ERT3-9		Technical infrastructure—roads, tracks, media, buildings, parking
ERT3-10		Reinforced foundations for some building facilities
ERT3-11		Advanced fire protection measures and monitoring

RVA4 is focused on the ultimate liquidation of the heap and using its material for building, mining, production, etc., purposes. The time horizon of liquidation depends on the material demand. Many risks are avoided, and common ERTs will then be unnecessary. They are removed from Table 5. After removing the material, basic ground rehabilitation is needed, but its character depends on the planned land use on the removed heap area. This issue is omitted in this case; however, it can be considered by the presented methodology. From an economic point of view, considerable sales revenues are expected. The heap material will be used for other applications. The impact on society and the environment is rather neutral.

Table 5. RVA4—Heap liquidation by the use of the heap material elsewhere.

ERT	Influenced RS	Elementary Revitalization Techniques
1. Implemented ad hoc in the past, included in RVA0
ERT1		Reducing the heap volume
ERT2		Forest
ERT3		Soil cleaning
2. Common elementary revitalization techniques—risk mitigation and heap improvement, adaptation
ERT4	RS5, RS6, RS9	Coal recovery
ERT6	RS8	Pollution elimination (permanent control of toxic substances release)
3. Specific to the planned usable revitalization applications
ERT4-1		Material utilization → Embankments construction
ERT4-2		Material utilization → Pavements construction
ERT4-3		Material utilization → Leveling degraded areas
ERT4-4		Material utilization → Railroad nodes
ERT4-5		Material utilization → Concrete production
ERT4-6		Material utilization → Backfilling (in mining)
4. Supplementing the planned revitalization applications (should be implemented to reduce risk related to the previous ones and be auxiliary for them)
ERT4-7		Temporary roads and trails for inspections and emergency fire brigades
ERT4-8		Organization of excavation facilities and equipment (to remove heap material)

Table 5. RVA4—Heap liquidation by the use of the heap material elsewhere.

ERT	Influenced RS	Elementary Revitalization Techniques
1. Implemented ad hoc in the past, included in RVA0
ERT1		Reducing the heap volume
ERT2		Forest
ERT3		Soil cleaning
2. Common elementary revitalization techniques—risk mitigation and heap improvement, adaptation
ERT4	RS5, RS6, RS9	Coal recovery
ERT6	RS8	Pollution elimination (permanent control of toxic substances release)
3. Specific to the planned usable revitalization applications
ERT4-1		Material utilization → Embankments construction
ERT4-2		Material utilization → Pavements construction
ERT4-3		Material utilization → Leveling degraded areas
ERT4-4		Material utilization → Railroad nodes
ERT4-5		Material utilization → Concrete production
ERT4-6		Material utilization → Backfilling (in mining)
4. Supplementing the planned revitalization applications (should be implemented to reduce risk related to the previous ones and be auxiliary for them)
ERT4-7		Temporary roads and trails for inspections and emergency fire brigades
ERT4-8		Organization of excavation facilities and equipment (to remove heap material)

Please note that the first sections of alternatives are the same. The second is the same for alternatives focused on land development and differs from the material utilization strategy.

Figure 3 presents the final shape of the alternatives after adding the application-, auxiliary-, and risk-reducing ERTs. In comparison to the contents of Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5, ERTs are renumbered, with some names changed and others removed from the tool.

Decision-makers obtain a comprehensive and ordered picture of all possible revitalization activities, encompassing all types of ERTs (inherent, risk-reducing, application-related, and others). This is the outcome of research related to Research Question 2. It is important to note that the final shape of RVAs is developed iteratively using RRA, CBA, and QCA analyses.

Figure 4 shows the final results of the risk analysis, but only for RVA0 (left panel) and RVA1 (right panel) after risk mitigation (concerning Research Question 3 related to risk management). The lists of risk scenarios are common for all alternatives, but some are not relevant (scenarios marked as “risk level = 0”).

RVA0 encompasses inherent risk scenarios (“Do nothing further”). Some of these scenarios are not acceptable. For other alternatives, inherent risks were mitigated by adding specific ERTs. This addition introduces new risks specific to given alternatives, which require identification and management (through mitigation or avoidance) by adding additional ERTs. Such a situation is presented for RVA1. Through iterative risk management, all relevant risk cases for RVA1 were managed, making them acceptable or tolerable.

The decision process is fueled by risk information related to all alternatives. It is assumed that at the decision stage, all risk cases should be deemed acceptable and tolerable (Research Question 3 related to risk management—results). The RRA module provides additional information related to risk management, with supplementary examples related to the graphical presentation of the RRA results placed in Supplementary Materials.

Decision-makers can use highly detailed financial data produced by CBA (Research Question 3 related to financial issues—results). Figure 5 shows an example. The left panel presents results for RVA2 Simple greenery. It is relatively cost-effective and yields some benefits, exhibiting NPV > 0 (profitable), and an estimated payback period of 2 years and 211 days. Notably, NPV (net present value) and DPBT (dynamic payback time) are the most important outputs from CBA.

The right panel shows a chart comparing the total CAPEX expenditures identified for specific alternatives. Similar charts are available for OPEX and the benefits.

Additional examples related to the graphical presentation of the CBA results are available in Supplementary Materials.

A very important input for decision-makers concerns data produced by the QCA module. Figure 6 presents a part of the QCA matrix. The first column includes all qualitative criteria organized by groups, such as Economics (concerning indirect impacts), Environment, General principles, etc. The groups and criteria within the groups have weights assigned (normalized to 100).

The analyst inputs their assessments (e.g., “Positive low”, None”, “Negative medium”), and these values are transformed by utility functions and weights [2]. Consequently, assessments for criteria and their groups for any RVAs are produced. It is important to note that each alternative is positively or negatively assessed (e.g., RVA0 has the aggregated value −2.44, RVA1 has 0.78, etc.).

This concerns Research Question 3 related to non-financial issues.

Additional examples related to the graphical presentation of the QCA results are available in Supplementary Materials.

The most important SUMAD RMT output (summary of results related to Research Question 4) is shown in Figure 7, which presents the aggregated results of all analyses for the decision-makers. The aggregated results summarize the outcomes of the RRA, CBA, and QCA analyses for all iteratively elaborated revitalization alternatives, rated as complete, free of unacceptable risks, and reasonable to claim them as the input for the decision process. Please note that underneath the aggregated results, detailed information, such as the RRA, CBA, and QCA results (tables and graphs), heap specification, and former incidents, is available to decision-makers.

The SUMAD process, facilitated by the tool presented in this section, serves as a summary exemplification pertaining to the following questions:

Research Question 4: How can we provide information to decision-makers?

Research Question 5: How can we structure the decision process, the outcome of which is the selection of the target revitalization activities?

The SUMAD decision process is structured (Section 2.2) and based on the decision input data elaborated during the iterative top-down analytical process, starting from heap identification to the elaboration of aggregated and highly detailed data for RVAs. This includes the generation of an extensive report known as the revitalization plan for the considered revitalization project. The decision (the choice of an RVA for implementation) is made manually. It has a heuristic and practical nature. It can be aided, for example, by expert discussions, voting, or brainstorming.

SUMAD RMT is equipped with different graphical, tabular, and textual facilities for data presentations, enhancing support for decision-makers. Additional examples are available in Supplementary Materials.

3. Results

The above-presented experiments related to the near-real heap revitalization case study, using the SUMAD RMT software, can be summarized as follows.

The revitalization project is fully facilitated by the tool, starting with the establishment of the project team, researching the revitalization project input data, performing analyses regarding the heap and revitalization activities, and ending with the compilation of aggregated data for decision-makers, including the generation of the revitalization plan.

Revitalization planning focuses on main steps, such as heap specification and the identification of historical revitalization activities, performing initial analyses, defining revitalization alternatives, and conducting detailed RRA, CBA, and QCA analyses. These steps are performed iteratively, allowing the achievement of the target solution incrementally. All steps were exemplified in Section 2. The tool allows the analyst some freedom to modify the heap specification, to define alternatives, and to repeat analyses.

Planning the revitalization process requires gathering and managing the following groups of information:

• A detailed specification of the revitalized heap;
• A detailed specification of the revitalization alternatives;
• Results of multidirectional analyses of the revitalization alternatives for the considered heap.

All of this diverse information is worked out for decision-makers and presented at different aggregation levels. Throughout the experiments encompassed by the case study, all these types of information were exemplified.

3.1. Specification of the Revitalized Heap

The heap specification in the software tool is very detailed and has a tree structure. It encompasses all properties implying risks to the heap and its environment and expresses economic and non-economic constraints. The main categories of the heap properties are as follows [2]:

• Geometrical parameters;
• Geological parameters;
• Pollutants regarding toxicity, corrosivity, littering, radioactivity, ignitability, reactivity;
• Characteristics of the heap environment, including landscape, climate, air pollution, flora, fauna, adjoining water, and protected areas such as culture, heritage, or nature.

An example is shown in Figure 2, which presents some of these properties and parameters.

3.2. Specification of Revitalization Alternatives

The specification of revitalization actions, referred to as alternatives—both past and planned ones—with detailed characteristics, allows the assessment of risk, costs and benefits, and qualitative properties. The alternatives are flexible and can be iteratively developed. The revitalization actions carried out in the past (RVA0) serve as the reference point for those under consideration when selecting the target alternative. Each alternative includes a textual description and a set of elementary items (ERTs) of different categories belonging to two super-categories (material utilization, land development), representing entirely different revitalization approaches.

Examples of revitalization alternatives are shown in Figure 3. ERTs are focused on the application or mitigation of risk or have a supplementary character.

3.3. Multidirectional Analyses and Results

SUMAD RMT allows three-directional analyses to be performed: risk assessment (RRA), cost–benefit parameter assessment, and intangible factor assessment. Their results form a unified picture of each alternative.

These analyses are focused on the heap and a specific revitalization alternative. They can be repeated multiple times after any changes in RVA specifications. RVA modification is necessary when the RVA needs improvement due to unsatisfactory RRA, CBA, or QCA results.

Figure 4 exemplifies the risk assessment for alternatives. For each risk scenario <Threat/hazard, Vulnerability> ⇒ Impact, its likelihood and consequences are assessed, resulting in the risk value.

Risk analysis alone is insufficient to identify feasible revitalization alternatives. The revitalization project should also consider financial aspects. Figure 5 presents the CBA results. Various CAPEX (e.g., initial, infrastructure, logistic, procurement costs), OPEX (e.g., direct, maintenance, supply costs), and BENEFITS (e.g., the value of produced energy, materials sold) categories [2] can be configured for the analysis (the same for the given project).

It is possible to formulate a revitalization alternative acceptable with respect to risk and financial parameters but completely unacceptable for people living in the heap surroundings and for the natural environment. Assessing these factors is challenging. Hence, the QCA module was applied, exemplified in Figure 6. The QCA results are aggregated for each weighted criteria group, and each weighted criterion within the group is assessed separately. The paper in [2] discusses the criteria and groups and their use in more detail. Weights are set at the project level to assess all RVAs in the same way.

3.4. Information Provided for Decision-Makers

The data aggregation and visualization tool is designed to assist decision-makers in their choice and planning of the revitalization process. Three kinds of information are produced by the tool (Figure 7):

• Aggregated data, which group the most important issues for decision-makers; they create a general view of alternatives, enabling their comparison;
• Detailed data (textual, tabular, graphical), encompassing results produced by the RRA, CBA, and QCA modules and included in the heap and revitalization alternative specifications; additional examples are provided in Supplementary Materials;
• A revitalization plan, which includes all data from the revitalization planning project (a dump); this pdf document is generated on request and is used as the project documentation; it is a very extensive document, including items discussed in the paper.

Each decision is based on the results of detailed analyses. Ultimately, decision-makers accept the justified target solution, which is fully documented in the revitalization plan.

Experiments on the near-real heap confirm that SUMAD RMT effectively aids decision-makers in the relevant data gathering, in multidirectional assessments of revitalization concepts, and, ultimately, in the selection of the target solution for implementation.

4. Discussion

The literature reviews conducted for the SUMAD proposal, for the papers focused on the SUMAD methodology [2], and for this paper confirm that there were no solutions (methodologies, tools) capable of aiding in planning the revitalization of post-mining waste dumps while considering three kinds of factors: mixed-risk, financial, and non-financial factors. Consequently, the tool had to be developed directly based on the identified users’ requirements and the multidisciplinary SUMAD project assumptions included in the proposal. Additionally, as the foundation of the methodology and tool, the author proposes adopting some ideas from previously conducted projects; however, these projects did not concern the post-mining heap revitalization domain. The methodology in [2] was extended by the SUMAD project team, validated, and ultimately implemented in software.

The theses of the paper concern the implementation of the SUMAD methodology in software.

It was claimed at the beginning of the paper that it is possible to formulate structured information describing the revitalization object and process and to implement these information structures in a software tool processing this information to formulate rational revitalization alternatives focused on the given post-mining heap concerning risk, financial, and non-financial factors (first thesis). To substantiate this thesis, several problems related to the research questions were addressed in Section 2.2:

• How can we specify heap properties so that they will be necessary and sufficient for analysts to identify risk factors as well as economic and non-economic limitations?
  Parameters and properties describing heaps were identified with the assistance of the SUMAD project team, grouping domain experts from different countries [1]. Detailed heap properties across Europe differ. For this reason, the data structure describing the heap should be very extensive and open to changes. The heap specification can be elaborated based on its documentation (textual description analysis). The data structure is common for all heaps specified in the tool. Some items irrelevant to a given heap can be left empty. It is possible to specify heterogeneous heaps. They can be embraced by different revitalization projects, or their particular areas embraced by one project can be treated differently. As an atypical issue, heterogeneous heaps were not discussed in the presented case study. A part of the heap specification tree is shown in Figure 2. The heap specification is the input to define revitalization alternatives and to perform three kinds of analyses.
• How can we formulate the revitalization alternatives?
  A straightforward solution was adopted. The RVA structure encompasses a general description and a set of ERTs of different types. Some are focused on the assumed heap application (e.g., photovoltaic farm, recreational facilities), some are supplemental (e.g., roads, media, reinforced foundations), and some reduce risk or improve the revitalized object (e.g., soil cleaning, profiling slopes, fire protection system). RVAs are developed iteratively—their contents are modified and analyzed again until an acceptable solution for the decision-makers is formulated. Most ERTs are placed in the predefined database as ready-to-use items or can be defined manually by the user in the tool. Examples are shown in Figure 3.
• How can we identify key information related to risk factors as well as financial and non-financial factors as the input for decision making?
  SUMAD RMT includes three analytical modules: RRA (Figure 4), CBA (Figure 5), and QCA (Figure 6). Each of them uses a specific and extensive subset of predefined categories, such as threats, vulnerabilities for RRA, cost–benefit categories for CBA, and qualitative criteria and utility functions for QCA. Calculation parameters are configurable. All these components form a domain-dedicated, flexible, and advanced analytic framework. No problems were identified during the analyses; all information needed for decision-makers was worked out.

Additionally, at the beginning of the paper, it was claimed that based on this information, it is possible to select the most advantageous, with respect to stakeholders’ interests, revitalization alternative for land development, considering the identified factors (second thesis). To substantiate this thesis, two problems related to the research questions were addressed in Section 2.2.

4.

How can we provide information to decision-makers?

The general picture of the revitalization project is represented by the aggregated results view (Figure 7), showing in one table a common and arbitrary set of important parameters for each RVA selected by the authors. More detailed data can be found in the RRA, CBA, and QCA analytical tables (Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6) and in graphs (Supplementary Materials). Decision-makers can view and print the current version of the revitalization plan document at any time. Decision-makers are provided with extensive, organized data in different levels of detail. Please note that decisions based on risk may yield economically ineffective solutions or solutions that are unacceptable to people living around the heap or harmful to the environment. Even when decisions are based on risk and financial factors, the solutions still might bring negative effects on the environment and society. Three-pillar analyses (RRA, CBA, QCA) provide comprehensive and objective input for decision-makers, allowing the production of several alternatives without unacceptable risks and reasonably aligning with the financial and non-financial perspectives. Therefore, such alternatives can be used as input in the decision process.

5.

How can we structure the decision process, the outcome of which is the selection of the target revitalization activities?

Output data from these above facilities are provided as input to the decision process. Please note that the main steps of the revitalization planning process include heap specification, preliminary analyses, defining revitalization alternatives, performing analyses for them, and making decisions, but the process is incremental and iterative to achieve an acceptable solution. The decision process is iterative and flexible. Decision-makers perform their decisions manually (brainstorming, voting, etc.). They can go back to modify the alternatives at any time, even to define entirely new ones and repeat the analyses. These works should be finalized by selecting the target alternative and generating a revitalization plan for it, as the document of the decision process.

The validation exemplifies all solved issues related to the research questions.

5. Conclusions

The main contribution of the paper is the validated three-pillar (RRA, CBA, QCA)-based framework to assist decision-makers in generating alternative solutions in heap revitalization planning.

5.1. Advantages Implied by SUMAD RMT

SUMAD RMT comprehensively supports the revitalization planning process. Additional advantages are implied by its implemented features, “computer-aided” and “knowledge-based”:

• Computer-aided: This feature implies that the most difficult and laborious planning activities are software-supported. The analyses become easier, with all data in one place, and available at any time. The results presented by the software (graphs, tables) facilitate decisions, and generating comprehensive reports helps document the planning process. Easy modification of data and composing new artifacts from previous ones increases reusability. The automation of the revitalization planning process brings cost-, quality-, and time-related advantages, similar to computer-aided design or engineering in other domains.
• Knowledge base: This includes a vast number of domain data that are easy to use in different projects. They can be considered specific design patterns in the heap revitalization domain. The knowledge-based methodology improves the precision, consistency, and reusability of revitalization projects.

5.2. Disadvantages Revealed during Validation Experiment

The validated tool is a prototype, requiring further improvement and commercialization. The validation presented in the paper indicates that some improvements would be desirable:

• A flexible system of identifiers should be designed and implemented in the tool to manage different items easily, including threats, vulnerabilities, risk scenarios, RVAs, and ERTs.
• Visualization of relations between items (e.g., to show all scenarios for a given threat or vulnerabilities).
• Establishing relations between the incidents registered for the given heaps (real incidents) and threats (potential incidents). Although the current version of the tool allows incidents to be registered, they are not connected to threats, vulnerabilities, or consequences. The proposed mechanism would improve the assessment of risk parameters, minimizing uncertainty.
• The data management and visualization module is based on a rigidly defined set of parameters representing aggregated data for decision-makers. This simple, inflexible mechanism could be replaced by a configurable one.
• Numerous rigidly defined graphs can be replaced by the graph wizard.

5.3. Going beyond Heap Revitalization Projects

Please note that SUMAD RMT has the potential to be applied in revitalization projects in similar domains (e.g., open-pit mines, brownfields, degraded urban areas, etc.). Such research requires, first of all, domain data identification and the elaboration of new contents of the PDM module (knowledge base contents). Currently, SUMAD RMT is focused on heap revitalization planning. Any kind of European heap can be specified within the tool as a revitalized object. The tool is configurable (especially the calculations) and flexible. It is possible to change any database item manually on the revitalization project level or to request the inclusion/modification of a given item in the knowledge base to be visible to all projects. It is possible to replace the current knowledge base (risk factors, CBA categories, QCA categories, ERTs, UFs) with another one focused on a new domain of application. It is more challenging to change the kind of revitalization object (e.g., from a heap to any kind of brownfield). This requires object identification and the elaboration of scripts loading data into the knowledge base. The range of the tool’s adaptation depends on how different the new domain of application is from the current one. In summary, it is possible to adapt SUMAD RMT to other domains of revitalization in the future.

5.4. Enhancing the Decision Support Offered by SUMAD RMT in the Future

According to the SUMAD project assumptions, decisions are made manually within the SUMAD framework. Decision-makers obtain vast amounts of useful and detailed information, partially aggregated, from the SUMAD RMT analyses and a set of well-defined revitalization alternatives, with risk, financial, and non-financial parameters assessed. The decision-makers should analyze and prioritize this information and finally select the target solution for implementation. They can make use of common methods such as brainstorming or voting. However, the decision process, even aided by ordered and useful information, is not easy. According to the authors’ opinion, the decision-makers should not only be able to represent their own interests but they should also have deep domain knowledge and a broader view. Decision subjectivity is an issue, too.

This disadvantage implies that further research is needed on better structuring a decision process and, therefore, providing better aid to decision-makers. Naturally, applying multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods/tools should be considered.

It is worth noting that during the literature review, a certain number of such applications were encountered. In particular, the AHP, TOPSIS, and PEST methods have the potential to be applied in revitalization planning. All of them require input data, mainly risk-related data, to define the decision process, specific to the given method (e.g., AHP criteria, positive and negative ideal solutions, PEST factors, models, weights, etc.). These input data are elaborated by experts by analyzing the domain of application.

TOPSIS assumes the identification of two ideal solutions: positive and negative. All considered solutions, here revitalization alternatives, are assessed with respect to the geometric distance to them. The alternative with the shortest distance to the positive and longest to the negative is preferred. The distance is based on different factors, including risk factors, which should be identified.

PEST considers political, economic, socio-cultural, and technological factors. Environmental and legal factors may be added (PESTEL). Such factors are also embraced by QCA in SUMAD RMT. PEST and QCA use predefined scales and are pseudo-quantitative. The qualitative criteria in QCA are structured (criteria and groups), weighted, and expressed by the utility functions.

The SUMAD methodology and tool have rich analytical possibilities, providing a vast amount of data as the decision input, from the very detailed to the aggregated ones, but the decision process is manual and poorly structured. Apart from this, the revitalization alternatives, which are subject to selection, are elaborated iteratively based on the RRA, CBA, and QCA analyses and assumptions regarding land use. Compared to the ad hoc roughly defined alternatives, they have a reasonable quality level and are more detailed and justified.

The authors propose an enhancement of the SUMAD decision process by incorporating selected multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods. In the first step, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method will be investigated [42]. Generally, this issue needs further research, with TOPSIS showing particular promise.

As a result, the SUMAD decision framework could be extended by an additional facility. The data worked out by SUMAD RMT can feed the decision-aided tool. This way, decisions will be based on robust data obtained from detailed analyses.

The holistic methodology presented here, supported by the software tool, helps find a balance between economic development, environmental protection, and social well-being in land development focused on post-mining heap revitalization. The discussed mitigation of the negative impacts of mining aligns with new trends in the circular economy, renewable energy resources, environmental protection, and recreation.