Next Article in Journal
ICT-Enabled Education for Sustainability Justice in South East Asian Universities
Previous Article in Journal
A Review of Corporate Social Responsibility Decoupling and Its Impact: Evidence from China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 10
10.3390/su16104048
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Mining Heritage Reuse Risks: A Systematic Review

by
Shuangyan Guo
1,*,
Shan Yang
2 and
Canjiao Liu
1
1
Research Center of Chinese Village Culture, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
2
School of Resources and Safety Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(10), 4048; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104048
Submission received: 28 March 2024 / Revised: 8 May 2024 / Accepted: 10 May 2024 / Published: 12 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Resources and Sustainable Utilization)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Mining heritage reuse refers to the practice of repurposing former mining sites and their associated structures, landscapes, and communities for new uses, which plays a critical role in the green transformation of countries that are heavily reliant on mining resources. Nonetheless, repurposing closed mining sites comes with its own set of risks. Given these complexities, conducting a comprehensive risk analysis is imperative. Adhering to the PRISMA guidelines, this study established a systematic review for assessing risks in mining heritage reuse. We meticulously screened literature from Web of Science (WoS), Engineer Village (EI), and Wiley, ultimately focusing on 12 pertinent articles. Our findings categorize the repurposing of mining heritage into six distinct sectors: renewable energy, agriculture, residential developments, tourism, forestry, and underground laboratories. Analysis of the extant literature reveals a predominant focus on the environmental and technical aspects of risks, with less attention paid to the social dimensions of risks. A key contribution of this review is the introduction of the Public–Private Partnership (PPP) model and a multi-hazard approach to examining risks associated with mining heritage reuse. Consequently, future research on the risks of repurposing mining heritage is recommended to incorporate assessments of social-level risks and the interplay among various risk factors.

1. Introduction

Mining entails the extraction of geological materials or valuable minerals from the earth, either from surface locations or subterranean depths, primarily from an ore body [1]. According to studies [2,3], “mining is defined as the process of excavating into the earth to extract naturally occurring minerals usually of high value”. Predominantly, mining is categorized into two types: surface mining, which involves extracting ores from near the Earth’s surface through methods such as open-pit mining and dredging, and underground mining, which focuses on the removal of minerals through deep-earth extraction techniques, such as in hard-rock mining [4,5], seabed mineral extraction [6], and the extraction of oil and gas [7]. Despite the diversity in methods and scale, mining is recognized as a temporary utilization of land, concluding once the economically viable resources are depleted. Historically, mining has played a fundamental role in the economic development and industrialization of numerous resource-rich nations, including Canada, Australia, and the United States [1,8], and has been a critical driver of economic growth, providing employment opportunities, infrastructure development, and essential materials for various industries [9]. However, alongside its economic benefits, mining has been associated with negative societal impacts, including environmental degradation, employment fluctuations, and economic challenges during periods of resource depletion [10,11], which are expected to leap forward if proper regulations are not strictly followed and enforced [12].
While many environmental considerations refer to the operational phase of the mine’s life, the ultimate questions of sustainability relate to the environmental legacy of the mining activity [13]. The concept of mining heritage encompasses the historical remnants of mining activities, including “mining relics”, “mining sites”, or “mining wastelands”, which constitute a significant part of our industrial legacy [14]. To be specific, mining heritage consists of all the historical remnants of mining development in the process of extraction; for instance, dumps, waste piles, mining pits, tailings ponds, mining areas, mining-contaminated areas, and cultural heritage [15]. In this research, mining heritage refers to all the remnants in the process of mining extraction, be it surface mining or underground mining, that can be found to exist on our planet with potential for resource reuse for better ends. The reuse of mining heritage, therefore, signifies a transformation of these remnants into productive activities on previously mined land, contributing to the green transformation of resource-based countries, sustainable development, and environmental remediation efforts [16]. Mining heritage reuse, the repurposing of abandoned or inactive mining sites, structures, and landscapes, is considered an innovative approach to addressing urban transformation challenges, industrial restructuring, and the development of successor industries [17,18], with significant cultural, economic, and environmental implications.
The transformation of mining heritage sites for sustainable reuse has gained increasing attention in recent years, and a variety of initiatives worldwide showcase innovative strategies to revitalize former mining areas, particularly to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts associated with mining activities. Noteworthy initiatives such as the European Route of Industrial Heritage (ERIH) have spearheaded the development of comprehensive cultural heritage tourism and mining preservation strategies by leveraging the diverse facets of mining heritage, which has been instrumental in the rejuvenation of former industrial sites across Spain, Belgium, France, and Greece [19]. In a similar vein, the Australian Senate commissioned an inquiry into the rehabilitation of mining and resources projects to the Environment and Communications References Committee, underlining the significance of addressing Commonwealth responsibilities in this regard [20]. Research into the conservation and utilization of mining heritage has highlighted examples such as the transformation of the historic Pena quarry in northern Portugal into a geotourism resource [21] and the reclamation of an abandoned quarry in the Campania region of Italy [22]. This innovative reuse not only fosters local economic development but also ensures a sustainable supply of granite for potential future restoration projects. In the United Kingdom, projects like the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape UNESCO World Heritage Site demonstrate how abandoned mining sites can be repurposed for tourism, education, and ecological restoration, contributing to local economies while conserving heritage assets [23,24]. Similarly, in Germany, the Ruhr region’s transformation from a coal mining hub to a cultural and creative landscape illustrates the potential for adaptive reuse to foster social cohesion and economic diversification in post-industrial contexts [25]. Furthermore, in the face of escalating climate change impacts, the creation of pit lakes from abandoned mine sites has gained traction in countries such as Australia, South Africa, and the Czech Republic, since they offer the opportunity to enhance recreational and ecological benefits through relandscaping, revegetation, aquatic life promotion, and water quality maintenance [26].
The above initiatives emphasize the critical role of mining heritage reuse in the green transformation of countries that are heavily reliant on natural resources, promoting sustainable development, and aligning with future trends in the environmental rehabilitation of mined territories. Nonetheless, the repurposing of closed mines is not without hazards and risks [27], and the benefits of mining heritage reuse are not universally guaranteed [28]. Conducting risk analyses is essential to identify and evaluate potential hazards associated with such mining heritage reuse projects. This study aims to develop a systematic and comprehensive framework for understanding the risks involved in mining heritage reuse, based on a review of existing literature. A systematic review of the literature on the subject of mining heritage reuse risks would allow us to quantify the importance of the methods and variables used in the risk assessment of sustainable development in mining resource reuse. It would also enable us to construct a systematic and comprehensive framework for assessing the risks of reusing mining heritage based on the points of view of previous studies. To this end, the systematic literature review was guided by the following research questions: RQ1: What are the trends in studying mining heritage reuse risks? RQ2: What are the classifications of mining heritage reuse? RQ3: What are the risk variables and methodology involved in mining heritage reutilization? Accordingly, the current study is structured as follows: the methodology follows this introduction section. Then, the results, discussion, conclusions, and limitations are developed respectively.

2. Methodology

This research employed a systematic literature review methodology, establishing a protocol for the meticulous search and screening of articles to minimize bias and enhance both the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the review [29,30,31]. Systematic literature reviews serve as a robust tool for identifying inconsistencies across existing studies within a specific research domain, thereby informing decision-making processes [32], delineating future research directions, and framing research methodologies [33]. Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Supplementary Material), we initially identified keywords pertinent to our study’s focus. Next, we outlined the literature selection and collection process, detailing the use of databases for literature searches followed by preliminary filtering and exclusions. We further refined our search through the development of explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria, leveraging Rayyan—a web and mobile application designed for systematic reviews [34]. Rayyan enhances the review process by offering semi-automated documentation management and facilitating collaboration among reviewers, a distinct advantage over traditional literature screening tools. In recent years, there has been an increasing emphasis on the utilization of Rayyan, particularly in the context of systematic reviews, as evidenced by its application in studies such as a review of architectural continuity [35]. Our search encompassed three authoritative and peer-reviewed databases: Web of Science (WoS), Engineer Village (EI), and Wiley, chosen for their comprehensive coverage and high-quality literature.

2.1. Keyword Selection

The keyword selection phase involved an initial search using terms directly related to “mining heritage”, “reuse”, and “risk” into the three databases. Encountering a limited and invalid yield, we added search terms related to this study by referring to keywords in the systematic literature review related to mining heritage to ensure that more literature could be obtained. Next, to address the issue of selecting keywords for the search, we conducted a panel discussion and, in the process, expanded keywords related to the study of mining heritage, such as “mining site”, “post-mining”, “mining wasteland”, and “mining park”. Finally, we used synonyms for “mining heritage”, “reuse”, and “risk” and used the wildcard “*” to construct our search formula for a comprehensive literature search (Table 1).

2.2. Literature Search

The literature search commenced in December 2023, and the literature search formula (Table 2) was constructed using keywords listed on Table 1. To avoid misunderstandings and ensure accurate judgement in reading literature in the next stage, English literature was exclusively included. Further, we also defined the timespan as being from 2000 to 2023. We first searched the WoS (Web of Science) database using keyword matching, and a total of 98 articles was obtained after the search. Then, we entered the search terms into the Engineer Village (EI) and Wiley online databases, which resulted in 73 and 123 articles, respectively. Our initial screening yielded 294 studies, which were subsequently imported into Rayyan for a detailed screening process.

2.3. Literature Screening

The screening phase, pivotal to the systematic review, involved a thorough evaluation of the collected articles to filter out irrelevant data. Rayyan (a web and mobile app for systematic reviews) was used in the screening process, which included automatic duplicate removal, exclusion of non-journal articles, and a meticulous review of titles, abstracts, and full texts to ensure relevance to the study’s core focus on mining heritage reuse risk assessment. We first used Rayyan to automatically identify and rejected items that appeared in more than one database, and 46 duplicates were founded and deleted. Additionally, we adopted journal articles only, and excluded 80 review articles, book chapters, and conference proceedings. In order to identify relevant articles, a total of 168 studies were examined, and this screening process for the database papers involved examining the title and the abstract of each paper. Those studies that were not directly related to mining analysis were eliminated during this phase. Further screening involved screening their abstracts for relevance to mining heritage reuse analysis. During this phase, some papers were excluded because they focused on topics of chemical properties, pollution, soil properties, and biological aspects that were not directly related to the mining heritage reuse analysis. We obtained 35 articles after the second literature screening. We then conducted a third screening, the full-text reading, to ascertain whether the 35 articles we had screened were closely linked to the risk assessment that our current study was focusing on. For the full-text reading process, 1 article’s full text was unable to be retrieved, thus being excluded. Later, the exclusion and inclusion criteria (Table 3) were applied to examine whether the remaining 34 articles addressed risks in mining heritage reuse (Appendix A). We determined which works were closely related to the topic based on our expertise and familiarity with the literature. To address subjectivity and mitigate potential biases during the third screening phase, we adopted consensus-based decision-making, discussing and deliberating on each potential inclusion, thereby reducing individual biases. Further, in aiming to reach agreement through open dialogue and collaboration, we enlisted subject matter experts to validate our selections. Following a rigorous multi-stage screening process, we narrowed down the selection to 12 full-text articles that closely aligned with our research objectives. The comprehensive literature search and screening process, meticulously documented in a flow diagram (Figure 1), underscores the methodical approach adopted in this study to ensure a thorough and unbiased review of the available literature on risks associated with mining heritage reuse, which sets the stage for a detailed analysis and discussion on risk assessment in mining heritage reutilization.

3. Results

This research utilized a systematic literature review methodology to meticulously select 12 pertinent articles from a diverse array of sources, and the studies included are listed chronologically by the year of publication in Table 4. The chosen articles were published within the years spanning from 2012 to 2023. The core objective of this study was to delineate the risks associated with the reuse of mining heritage. The geographic distribution of these studies spans several countries, with two studies originating from the EU and two from China, and others conducted in Australia, Belgium, Malaysia, the United States, France, Poland, Mexico, and Slovakia, thereby providing a broad perspective on the subject matter. The compilation of Table 4 encompasses the names of the authors, the countries where the studies were conducted, the titles of the articles, the model or methodology of the publications, and the nature of studies.

3.1. Trends in Studying Mining Heritage Reuse Risks

As depicted in Table 4, investigations into the risks associated with the reuse of mining heritage have primarily been carried out in countries or regions with well-established mining industries, with the highest concentration of studies observed in the European Union (EU) and China. Given the substantial economic contributions of mining activities in these areas, significant tensions arise between mining operations, local communities, and existing land uses, such as agriculture and biodiversity conservation, due to the environmental impacts on natural resources. This focus underscores the prevalence of research in mining-dominant countries, exploring the risks associated with repurposing mining sites.
Regarding trends in research methodologies concerning the risks of mining heritage reuse, a comprehensive analysis was conducted on the techniques, models, and theories utilized in the literature reviewed. As delineated in Table 4, a notable aspect of the methodologies employed in examining mining heritage reuse risks was the utilization of risk assessment approaches employing various models, including the matter–element extension model, IEUBK (Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic) model, and conceptual model. Additionally, methods such as georeferencing, APHA (American Public Health Association) Standard Methods, and risk matrix approach were employed to investigate the risks associated with repurposing mining heritage. The majority of publications explored the risk issues in mining reutilization from the perspectives of risk assessment and risk management. Furthermore, eight out of the twelve articles included in this study employed a combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies, while four articles exclusively utilized quantitative analysis and one focused solely on qualitative study. The framework developed for assessing the risks associated with mining heritage reuse in this study amalgamated both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Our approach was intentionally flexible, aiming to employ a combination of methodologies as dictated by the specific research needs.

3.2. Classifications of Mining Heritage Reuse

In the mining industry, established infrastructure extends beyond surface facilities to include quarries, open pits, and an extensive network of underground tunnels, galleries, and workings. While many of these facilities hold potential for non-mining activities, a significant portion becomes abandoned during or after mining operations. Repurposing mining heritage thus represents efforts to address the challenges of redeveloping these abandoned sites. The framework proposed by Yang et al. [15], delineating key components of mining heritage for risk assessment research, serves as a fundamental reference in categorizing the reuse of mining heritage. According to this framework, mining heritage encompasses the historical remnants associated with mining development, comprising dumps, waste piles, mining pits, tailings ponds, mining areas, mining-contaminated areas, and cultural heritage. Among the 12 articles reviewed on mining heritage reuse, seven focused on mining areas, two on mining waste dumps and tailings ponds, and one on mining pits.
The repurposing of mining heritage spans six categories: renewable energy infrastructure, agriculture, residential areas, tourism, forestry, and underground laboratories. For instance, Bialas [38] discussed the conversion of mining waste dumps in Poland into renewable energy infrastructure. One of the environmental impacts that mining exploitation exerts is the contamination of water in its surroundings. In Belgium, the hydrogeochemical behavior of a metal mining wasteland was studied, revealing opportunities for reusing mining wastewater in agriculture for irrigation purposes [40]. In Queensland, Australia, the transformation of coal deposits into forestry land for cattle grazing through the use of pasture grasses was explored [13]. Furthermore, the integration of tourism with mining heritage has been extensively discussed, with various regional organizations endeavoring to repurpose post-mining brownfields for tourism with minimal adjustments and costs [39]. China also provides an example where a former coal mining site was transformed into a mining heritage park, stimulating economic development through culture, tourism, and creativity [15]. Underground mines, integral to mining operations, offer diverse opportunities for repurposing, with underground laboratories emerging as prominent in EU countries [43]. Additionally, two studies investigated the unexpected transformation of mine shafts and tailing dams into housing and residential areas in Belgium and Mexico, respectively [36,37], as is also true of another study conducted in Korea talking about inhabitants of abandoned metal mine areas [44].These examples underscore the multifaceted approaches to repurposing mining heritage and reusing redundant mining infrastructure in creative ways to generate a competitive advantage [45], highlighting the potential for sustainable development within these sites.

3.3. Risk Variables Identified in Mining Heritage Reuse

Abandoned mines, notorious for their severe land degradation, have garnered global attention due to their significant environmental, ecosystem, and human health threats arising from mining waste, tailings, and acid mine drainage, as well as their potential for land reutilization [46,47,48]. Ecological damage resulting from mineral resource exploitation may be inevitable, but effective planning, design, and regulation can help mitigate these impacts. Technological advancements and process enhancements can address many environmental issues such as noise, dust, and water pollution, but some pollution effects, notably groundwater and heavy metal pollution, persist and pose challenges for remediation [49]. Thus, identifying potential risks in the process of repurposing mining heritage is of paramount importance.
Key risk categories proposed by Konieczna-Fuławka et al. [43] and Al Heib et al. [14] have been adapted and refined for application in the identification of mining heritage reuse risks within this systematic review. In the two aforementioned studies, the former, focusing on underground mine reuse, categorized risk into four groups of “Environmental risk” (E), “Mining operations” (MO), “Workplace” (WP), and “Other” (O), while the later classified hazards into three groups of “Mining Hazards”, “Natural Hazards”, and “Technological Hazards”. To streamline analysis across the 12 studies included, we consolidated the above groups into three main groups: the environmental, mining, and social levels of risk. Risks at the environmental level center on contamination of water or metal, seismic activity, and biodiversity loss or habitat destruction within the mining environment. Mining level risks cover those directly associated with the mining operations and their legacies, including structural stability (shafts, tunnels, or buildings), subsidence, and hazardous materials or equipment. Social risks encompass the economic or financial funding, political factors involving government and policy, and civilian and contractors in mining heritage reuse. The risk variables examined in the 12 publications were then allocated to these categories, as detailed in Table 5.

4. Discussion

The evolution and repurposing of mining heritage can be traced back to the last century, delineated into two distinct periods. From the 1980s to 2000, emphasis was placed on assessing the value of mining heritage, landscape development, and tourism initiatives associated with mining heritage [50]. As we entered the new millennium, in addition to the aforementioned aspects, sustainable development and the low-carbon revolution gained prominence [51], leading to a surge in research on mining heritage reuse. However, numerous challenges have been identified [52], including inadequate utilization of historical resources, insufficient integration of culture with tourism, and a shortage of expertise in mining tourism [53], highlighting potential risks in the development and reuse of mining heritage. In light of these diverse risks, it becomes imperative to identify and address them to safeguard and restore legacies in the mining process. With this objective in mind, this study aims to supplement the process of identifying risks affecting the reutilization of mining heritage.
Firstly, as revealed in Table 4, the categorization of risks across the 12 articles indicates a lower frequency of studies addressing social-level risks compared to environmental and mining-level risks in mining heritage reuse. While environmental and mining risks are more visible and considered essential, the social-level risks associated with mining heritage reuse have gained increasing scholarly attention in recent years. One finding is that the choice of post-mining land use is primarily driven by government legislation [13]. Additionally, the more-subtle and less-visible interactional dynamics and strategies of power, resistance, and justification that manifest between a multi-stakeholder-governed foundation and victims are also worthy of noticing, as pointed out in the study of the collapse of Samarco Mining Corporation’s Fundão tailings dam in Brazil [54]. Moreover, the initiation and execution of mining heritage reuse projects require a large amount of human and material resources and financial support [15]. Thus, it is evident that stakeholders’ involvement in mining heritage repurposing, emphasized at the social level, constitutes an integral aspect of risk assessment. A notable contribution highlighted in this review is the introduction of a new Public–Private Partnership (PPP) model to mining heritage, enhancing the matter–element extension model [55]. This new PPP model, characterized by a synergistic governance mechanism involving multiple stakeholders with the government at the core, enterprises as intermediaries, and public participation [56], addresses mining heritage reuse risk factors across social capital, contractor, government, and civilian domains. It was successfully implemented in the Jiaozuo-Centennial Mining Heritage Park project in China, shedding light on the significance of focusing on social risks in mining heritage reuse alongside environmental and mining risks.
Secondly, within the context of mining heritage reuse, risk assessment studies often concentrate on the detailed examination of individual hazard phenomena [57], which is also true for the majority of the 12 articles. However, mining heritage reuse is typically influenced by multiple environmental, mining, or social risks that can occur simultaneously or consecutively. There may be commonalities in the types of risks encountered across different applications of mining heritage reuse, and the relationship between perceived risks and specific types of transformations or purposes is likely to be nuanced and context-dependent [58]. One study even argued that risks were likely to happen from the whole lifecycle of a mining heritage reuse project, thus making it urgent to understand risk distribution [59]. In such scenarios, assessing a single risk can be insufficient when considering multiple hazards. A possible solution, the risk-based comparison approach, was put forward in analyzing the risk coexistence of different mining activities on the territory where mining took place [60]. Furthermore, multi-hazard assessment, defined as an approach considering more than one hazard and their interrelationships, including simultaneous or cumulative occurrences and interactions, offers another comprehensive solution [61]. Liu et al. [62] proposed a three-level framework for multi-risk assessment, encompassing a flow chart to determine the need for multi-hazard assessment, a semi-quantitative approach, and a detailed quantitative multi-risk analysis based on Bayesian networks. Furthermore, De Ruiter et al. [63] highlighted the limitations of single-hazard risk assessments in evaluating regional hazards, emphasizing the necessity of multi-hazard approaches. Among the 12 publications reviewed, one article applied a multi-hazard assessment method in the risk assessment of mining heritage reuse, and illustrated the complexity and multiple interaction possibilities, with the interaction levels being marked as “No known interaction”, “Low interaction”, “Moderate interaction”, and “High interaction”, which contributes to the enhanced methodological knowledge and practical application of multi-hazard analyses in various contexts.
Finally, to achieve sustainable development of mining legacies, rigorous risk assessment processes are essential for projects involving the reuse of mining heritage (dumps, waste piles, mining pits, tailings ponds, mining areas, mining-contaminated areas, and cultural heritage) into renewable energy infrastructure, agriculture, residential areas, tourism, forestry, and underground laboratories. Building upon the findings and discussions presented, a systematic evaluation framework has been constructed to elucidate and comprehend the risk assessment process in mining heritage reuse (Figure 2), catering to a diverse array of stakeholders [64], such as government agencies, local communities, industry stakeholders, environmental organizations, and the academic and research community, in their efforts of transforming mined territories into greener and sustainable spaces. The initial step involves articulating the objectives of the risk assessment, including the specific aspects of mining heritage reuse to be evaluated. Then, suitable methodologies for risk identification and assessment are chosen, considering factors such as the scale of the project, available data, and stakeholder input, incorporating quantitative and qualitative approaches as needed. Lastly, the likelihood and consequences of identified risks are evaluated, and risks prioritized [65] based on their significance and potential impact on the objectives of the reuse project. Risk levels in mining heritage reuse projects are typically categorized from lowest to highest, denoted as level I to level III [14,26,40,41,43]. Level I indicates minimal or low risks throughout the project duration, signifying reasonable risk levels. Level II suggests a few or some risk occurrences during the project, indicating potential issues in mining heritage repurposing. Projects marked with Level III signify higher or significant risk levels during the project duration. Accurate identification of risk levels enables the anticipation, avoidance, and resolution of potential problems in mining heritage projects, ensuring smooth progress and timely completion.

5. Conclusions

Mining activities significantly contribute to global economies, offering infrastructure that could potentially serve non-mining purposes. However, the reality is that a vast majority of these facilities are abandoned post-mining operations [43], with an estimated one million sites worldwide covering an area of nearly 70,000 km2 [66], presenting a substantial opportunity for resource repurposing. The conversion of mining heritage into productive uses signifies a strategic shift from viewing former mining areas merely as relics to recognizing their potential for fostering activities on previously exploited lands [67]. Bolstered by international initiatives aimed at the redevelopment of these abandoned sites [19,20,21,22,23,24,25], the repurposing of mining heritage into diverse sustainable uses is a burgeoning field. Despite the potential benefits, the transition process is fraught with various hazards and risks, making it imperative to undertake comprehensive risk analyses to navigate the complexities of mining heritage reuse effectively. This study embarked on a systematic literature review concerning the risks associated with mining heritage reuse, culminating in the analysis of 12 articles sourced from the Web of Science (WoS), Engineer Village (EI), and Wiley databases. Following the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews, this research spanned studies from the EU, China, Australia, Belgium, Malaysia, the United States, France, Poland, Mexico, and Slovakia, with a methodological blend of quantitative and qualitative analyses. The repurposing of mining heritage was categorized into six distinct applications: renewable energy infrastructure, agriculture, residential areas, tourism, forestry, and underground laboratories. Notably, the reviewed literature predominantly emphasized environmental and mining risks, with less attention paid to social risk factors. A key contribution of this review is the introduction of the Public–Private Partnership (PPP) model and a multi-hazard approach to risk assessment, advocating for future research to incorporate social risk considerations and variable interactions.
This review acknowledges certain limitations, including the potential bias in keyword selection influenced by the research team’s knowledge and interests, and the restriction to English-language articles from three peer-reviewed databases, which may have excluded relevant studies in other languages or sources. To address these limitations and guide future research, several trends and strategies merit consideration. Firstly, the interdisciplinary collaboration between researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and community stakeholders to integrate diverse perspectives and expertise into research and decision-making processes in mining heritage reuse is crucial. Secondly, it is essential to conduct longitudinal studies to monitor the long-term impacts of mining heritage reuse on environmental, social, and economic outcomes, providing insights into sustainability and resilience. Thirdly, there is a need to develop robust risk assessment frameworks and mitigation strategies to address potential hazards and challenges associated with mining heritage reuse, such as environmental contamination, safety hazards, and socio-economic disparities. Finally, prioritizing meaningful engagement with local communities throughout the planning, implementation, and monitoring phases of mining heritage reuse projects is imperative. This ensures that their voices and concerns are duly recognized and addressed. Over the past two decades, there has been a global surge in research on the reuse of mining heritage, reflecting a nascent yet growing commitment to environmental stewardship and sustainable development. While challenges abound, the shifting paradigms towards sustainability are expected to drive continued innovation and efforts in repurposing lands formerly dedicated to mining.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su16104048/s1. Reference [68] are citied in the Supplementary Materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.G. and S.Y.; formal analysis, S.G., S.Y. and C.L.; Writing—original draft preparation, S.G.; Writing—review and editing, S.G.; supervision, S.Y. and C.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation Project of China under Grant No.72088101 and No.52274163, and was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Central South University under Grant No. 2021ZZTS0014, Guangdong Philosophy and Social Science Funds under Grant No.GD23XSH21 and Guangxi Philosophy and Social Science Funds under Grant No. 23BWY004.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. 34 full-text articles’ screening results based on the inclusion and non-inclusion parameters.
Table A1. 34 full-text articles’ screening results based on the inclusion and non-inclusion parameters.
No.TitleYearReuseRisksCase Study
1The Impact of mining activities on Mongolia’s protected areas: A status report with policy recommendations2005×√√
2Grazing as a post-mining land use: A conceptual model of the risk factors2012√√√
3Risk analysis of a residential area close to the tailing dams of an ex-foundry2012√√√
4The numerical map of known mine shafts in wallonia: A useful tool for land planning and risk management2015√√√
5Spatial assessment of open cut coal mining progressive rehabilitation to support the monitoring of rehabilitation liabilities2016√×√
6Selecting Proper Plant Species For Mine Reclamation Using Fuzzy AHP Approach (Case Study: Chadormaloo Iron Mine Of Iran)2016√×√
7Extractive waste management: A risk analysis approach2018×√√
8Mining at the crossroads: Sectoral diversification to safeguard sustainable mining?2018×√√
9Challenges and strategies of abandoned mine rehabilitation in South Africa: The case of asbestos mine rehabilitation2019×√√
10A Geospatial Database for Effective Mine Rehabilitation in Australia2020×√√
11Risk Management Approach for Revitalization of Post-mining Areas2020√√√
12Transforming Brownfields as Tourism Destinations and Their Sustainability on the Example of Slovakia2020√√√
13Contamination of stream waters, sediments, and agricultural soil in the surroundings of an abandoned copper mine by potentially toxic elements and associated environmental and potential human health-derived risks: a case study from Agrokipia, Cyprus2020×√√
14The Mechanisms of Endogenous Fires Occurring in Extractive Waste Dumping Facilities2020√√×
15A Framework for Ranking the Environmental Risk of Abandoned Mines in the State of Minas Gerais/Brazil2021×√√
16Effects of Exposure to Lead and Cadmium on Health of Inhabitants of Abandoned Metal Mine Area in Korea2021×√√
17Prospect of abandoned metal mining sites from a hydrogeochemical perspective2021√√√
18Construction Risk Evaluation of Poor Geological Channels Based on Cloud Model-Improved AHP-Matter-Element Theory2021√×√
19Lifecycle risk assessment on the sustainable development of upgrading energy projects using abandoned mines: An ISM-BWM method2022×√√
20Managing Methane Emissions in Abandoned Coal Mines: Comparison of Different Recovery Technologies by Integrating Techno-Economic Analysis and Life-Cycle Assessment2022×√√
21Optimal restoration of common property resources under uncertainty2022×√√
22Territorial Mining Scenarios for Sustainable Land-Planning: A Risk-Based Comparison on the Example of Gold Mining in French Guiana2022×√√
23Application of RESRAD and ERICA tools to estimate dose and cancer risk for artisanal gold mining in Nigeria2022×√√
24Towards sustainable and efficient land development: Risk of soil heavy metal(loid)s in abandoned gold mines with short-term rehabilitation and potential value for targeted remediation2022×√√
25Dynamics of multiple stakeholders’ benefits due to mining area environmental remediation based on risk reduction and ecosystem services2023×√√
26Effect of income, industry structure and environmental regulation on the ecological impacts of mining: An analysis for Guangxi Province in China2023×√√
27A framework for assessing hazards related to pit lakes: application on European case studies2023√√√
28Post-Mining Multi-Hazard Assessment for Sustainable Development2023√√√
29Remediating and Reusing Abandoned Mining Sites in US Metropolitan Areas: Raising Visibility and Value2023√√√
30Risk Assessment of Mining Heritage Reuse in Public-Private-Partnership Mode Based on Improved Matter-Element Extension Model2023√√√
31Challenges Related to the Transformation of Post-Mining Underground Workings into Underground Laboratories2023√√√
32Reclaiming abandoned mine tailings ponds for agricultural use: Opportunities and challenges2023√√√
33Integrated Mining and Reclamation Practices Enhance Sustainable Land Use: A Case Study in Huainan Coalfield, China2023×√√
34Remote Sensing Data and Indices to Support Water Management: A Holistic Post-mining Approach for Lignite Mining in Greece2023×√√

References

  1. Worlanyo, A.S.; Jiangfeng, L. Evaluating the environmental and economic impact of mining for post-mined land restoration and land-use: A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 279, 111623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Amponsah-Tawiah, K.; Dartey-Baah, K. The mining industry in Ghana: A blessing or a curse. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2011, 2, 62–69. [Google Scholar]
  3. Jain, R. Environmental Impact of Mining and Mineral Processing: Management, Monitoring, and Auditing Strategies; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  4. Aryee, B.N.; Ntibery, B.K.; Atorkui, E. Trends in the small-scale mining of precious minerals in Ghana: A perspective on its environmental impact. J. Clean. Prod. 2003, 11, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Northey, S.; Haque, N.; Mudd, G. Using sustainability reporting to assess the environmental footprint of copper mining. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 40, 118–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kaikkonen, L.; Venesjärvi, R.; Nygård, H.; Kuikka, S. Assessing the impacts of seabed mineral extraction in the deep sea and coastal marine environments: Current methods and recommendations for environmental risk assessment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 135, 1183–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Islam, A.S.; Jameel, M.; Jumaat, M.Z. Oil and gas energy potential at malaysian seabed and spar platform for deepwater installation. Int. J. Green Energy 2012, 9, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kibria, G. Mining: Friend or foe? Economic, environmental & social impacts-an overview. J. Sci. Technol. 2013, 35, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  9. Ronyastra, I.M.; Saw, L.H.; Low, F.S. A review of methods for integrating risk management and multicriteria decision analysis in financial feasibility for post-coal-mining land usage selection. Resour. Policy 2023, 86, 104260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wei, J.; Zhang, J.; Wu, X.; Song, Z. Governance in mining enterprises: An effective way to promote the intensification of resources—Taking coal resources as an example. Resour. Policy 2022, 76, 102623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Huang, X.; Meng, F. Digital finance mitigation of ‘resource curse’ effect: Evidence from resource-based cities in China. Resour. Policy 2023, 83, 103711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nakazawa, K.; Nagafuchi, O.; Kawakami, T.; Inoue, T.; Yokota, K.; Serikawa, Y.; Cyio, B.; Elvince, R. Human health risk assessment of mercury vapor around artisanal small-scale gold mining area, Palu city, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2016, 124, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Maczkowiack, R.; Smith, C.; Slaughter, G.; Mulligan, D.; Cameron, D. Grazing as a post-mining land use: A conceptual model of the risk factors. Agric. Syst. 2012, 109, 76–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Al Heib, M.M.; Franck, C.; Djizanne, H.; Degas, M. Post-Mining Multi-Hazard Assessment for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yang, S.; Zhuo, S.; Xu, Z.; Chen, J. Risk Assessment of Mining Heritage Reuse in Public–Private-Partnership Mode Based on Improved Matter–Element Extension Model. Mathematics 2023, 11, 3599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jiao, W.; Zhang, X.; Li, C.; Guo, J. Sustainable transition of mining cities in China: Literature review and policy analysis. Resour. Policy 2020, 74, 101867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Szromek, A.R.; Herman, K.; Naramski, M. Sustainable development of industrial heritage tourism—A case study of the Industrial Monuments Route in Poland. Tour. Manag. 2020, 83, 104252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Werner, T.T.; Bach, P.M.; Yellishetty, M.; Amirpoorsaeed, F.; Walsh, S.; Miller, A.; Roach, M.; Schnapp, A.; Solly, P.; Tan, Y.; et al. A Geospatial database for effective mine rehabilitation in Australia. Minerals 2020, 10, 745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Naramski, M.; Herman, K.; Szromek, A.R. The transformation process of a former industrial plant into an industrial heritage tourist site as open innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Senate, A. Rehabilitation of Mining and Resources Projects and Power Station Ash Dams as It Relates to Commonwealth Responsibilities; Environment and Communications Reference Committee: Canberra, Australia, 2017.
  21. Freire-Lista, D.M.; Becerra, J.B.; de Abreu, M.S. The historical quarry of Pena (Vila Real, north of Portugal): As-sociated cultural heritage and reuse as a geotourism resource. Resour. Policy 2022, 75, 102528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Buondonno, A.; Grilli, E.; Capra, G.; Glorioso, C.; Langella, A.; Leone, A.; Leone, N.; Odierna, P.; Vacca, S.; Vigliotti, R. Zeolitized tuffs in pedotechnique for the reclamation of abandoned quarries. A case study in the Campania region (Italy). J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 122, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Knight, J.; Harrison, S. ‘A land history of men’: The intersection of geomorphology, culture and heritage in Cornwall, southwest England. Appl. Geogr. 2013, 42, 186–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Braungardt, C.; Chen, X.; Chester-Sterne, D.; Quinn, J.G.A.; Turner, A. Arsenic concentrations, distributions and bioaccessibilities at a UNESCO World Heritage Site (Devon Great Consols, Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape). Environ. Pollut. 2020, 264, 114590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Wrede, V.; Mügge-Bartolović, V. GeoRoute Ruhr—A Network of Geotrails in the Ruhr Area National GeoPark, Germany. Geoheritage 2012, 4, 109–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Al Heib, M.; Varouchakis, E.A.; Galetakis, M.; Renaud, V.; Burda, J. A framework for assessing hazards related to pit lakes: Application on European case studies. Environ. Earth Sci. 2023, 82, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Parry, D.N.; Chiverrell, C.P. Abandoned Mine Workings Manual, C758D; Construction Industry Research and Information Association: London, UK, 2019; ISBN 978-0-86017-765-4. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hähnel, L. Restoration, Governance and Regional Development in the South of Leipzig. Proc, Mining Meets Water–Conflicts and Solutions; Technische Universität Bergakademie Freiberg: Freiberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 740–744. [Google Scholar]
  29. O’Dea, R.E.; Lagisz, M.; Jennions, M.D.; Koricheva, J.; Noble, D.W.; Parker, T.H.; Gurevitch, J.; Page, M.J.; Stewart, G.; Moher, D.; et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: A PRISMA extension. Biol. Rev. 2021, 96, 1695–1722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Aromataris, E.; Pearson, A. The systematic review: An overview. AJN Am. J. Nurs. 2014, 114, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Denyer, D.; Tranfield, D. Producing a systematic review. In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research Methods; Sage Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2009; pp. 671–689. [Google Scholar]
  32. Xiao, Y.; Watson, M. Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2017, 39, 93–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Borrego, M.; Foster, M.J.; Froyd, J.E. Systematic Literature Reviews in Engineering Education and Other Developing Interdisciplinary Fields. J. Eng. Educ. 2014, 103, 45–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ouzzani, M.; Hammady, H.; Fedorowicz, Z.; Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2016, 5, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wang, X.; Zhu, L.; Li, J.; Zhang, N.; Tang, Y.; Sun, Y.; Wu, H.; Cheng, C. Architectural Continuity Assessment of Rural Settlement Houses: A Systematic Literature Review. Land 2023, 12, 1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Aragón, M.C.V.; Herrera, M.T.A. Risk analysis of a residential area close to the tailing dams of an ex-foundry. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2012, 32, 1150–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kheffi, A.; Pacyna, D.; Delforge, P. The Numerical Map of Known Mine Shafts in Wallonia: A Useful Tool for Land Planning and Risk Management. In Engineering Geology for Society and Territory-Volume 5: Urban Geology, Sustainable Planning and Landscape Exploitation; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 933–936. [Google Scholar]
  38. Bialas, A. Risk management approach for revitalization of post-mining areas. In Theory and Applications of Dependable Computer Systems: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Dependability of Computer Systems DepCoS-RELCOMEX, Brunów, Poland, 29 June–3 July 2020; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 71–81. [Google Scholar]
  39. Gregorová, B.; Hronček, P.; Tometzová, D.; Molokáč, M.; Čech, V. Transforming Brownfields as Tourism Destinations and Their Sustainability on the Example of Slovakia. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kusin, F.M.; Sulong, N.A.; Affandi, F.N.A.; Molahid, V.L.M.; Jusop, S. Prospect of abandoned metal mining sites from a hydrogeochemical perspective. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 28, 2678–2695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Schneider, D.; Greenberg, M.R. Remediating and reusing abandoned mining sites in U.S. metropolitan areas: Raising visibility and value. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yu, H.; Zahidi, I.; Fai, C.M. Reclaiming abandoned mine tailings ponds for agricultural use: Opportunities and challenges. Environ. Res. 2023, 232, 116336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Konieczna-Fuławka, M.; Szumny, M.; Fuławka, K.; Jaśkiewicz-Proć, I.; Pactwa, K.; Kozłowska-Woszczycka, A.; Joutsenvaara, J.; Aro, P. Challenges Related to the Transformation of Post-Mining Underground Workings into Underground Laboratories. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Moon, J.-Y.; Eom, S.-Y.; Seo, J.-W.; Lee, J.-E.; Choi, B.-S.; Kim, H.; Hong, Y.-S.; Chang, J.Y.; Jeon, M.-J.; Park, W.-J.; et al. Effects of exposure to lead and cadmium on health of inhabitants of abandoned metal mine area in Korea. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2021, 80, 490–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. de Lange, W.; de Wet, B.; Haywood, L.; Stafford, W.; Musvoto, C.; Watson, I. Mining at the crossroads: Sectoral diversification to safeguard sustainable mining? Extr. Ind. Soc. 2018, 5, 269–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Dewil, R.; Baeyens, J.; Neyens, E. Reducing the heavy metal content of sewage sludge by advanced sludge treatment methods. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2006, 23, 994–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hadjipanagiotou, C.; Christou, A.; Zissimos, A.M.; Chatzitheodoridis, E.; Varnavas, S.P. Contamination of stream waters, sediments, and agricultural soil in the surroundings of an abandoned copper mine by potentially toxic elements and associated environmental and potential human health–derived risks: A case study from Agrokipia, Cyprus. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 41279–41298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mehta, N.; Dino, G.A.; Ajmone-Marsan, F.; Lasagna, M.; Romè, C.; De Luca, D.A. Extractive waste management: A risk analysis approach. Sci. Total. Environ. 2018, 622-623, 900–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Dou, S.; Xu, D.; Keenan, R.J. Effect of income, industry structure and environmental regulation on the ecological impacts of mining: An analysis for Guangxi Province in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 400, 136654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Navarro, R.; Martinez-Martinez, J.; Suarez, J.F.; Alvarez-Areces, E.; Baltuille, J.M. Comparative analysis of the current uneven situation of historical quarries associated with the UNESCO world heritage sites in Spain. Resour. Policy 2022, 75, 102471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Unger, C.; Lechner, A.; Kenway, J.; Glenn, V.; Walton, A. A jurisdictional maturity model for risk management, accountability and continual improvement of abandoned mine remediation programs. Resour. Policy 2015, 43, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Xie, P.F. A life cycle model of industrial heritage development. Ann. Tour. Res. 2015, 55, 141–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Conesa, H.M.; Schulin, R.; Nowack, B. Mining landscape: A cultural tourist opportunity or an environmental problem?: The study case of the Cartagena–La Unión Mining District (SE Spain). Ecol. Econ. 2008, 64, 690–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Maher, R. Deliberating or stalling for justice? dynamics of corporate remediation and victim resistance through the lens of parentalism: The fundão dam collapse and the renova foundation in Brazil. J. Bus. Ethics 2021, 178, 15–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cai, W. Extension theory and its application. Chin. Sci. Bull. 1999, 44, 1538–1548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Campbell, B. Corporate Social Responsibility and development in Africa: Redefining the roles and responsibilities of public and private actors in the mining sector. Resour. Policy 2012, 37, 138–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Abdul-Wahed, M.; Al Heib, M.; Senfaute, G. Mining-induced seismicity: Seismic measurement using multiplet approach and numerical modeling. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2006, 66, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Fernandes, P.R.M.; Lima, H.M.D. A framework for ranking the environmental risk of abandoned mines in the state of minas gerais/Brazil. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. He, J.; Wu, Y.; Yong, X.; Ke, Y.; Tan, Q.; Liu, F. Lifecycle risk assessment on the sustainable development of upgrading energy projects using abandoned mines: An ISM-BWM method. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2022, 54, 102833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Scammacca, O.; Mehdizadeh, R.; Gunzburger, Y. Territorial Mining Scenarios for Sustainable Land-Planning: A Risk-Based Comparison on the Example of Gold Mining in French Guiana. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Budimir, M.E.A.; Atkinson, P.M.; Lewis, H.G. Earthquake-and-landslide events are associated with more fatalities than earthquakes alone. Nat. Hazards 2014, 72, 895–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Liu, Z.; Nadim, F.; Garcia-Aristizabal, A.; Mignan, A.; Fleming, K.; Luna, B.Q. A three-level framework for multi-risk assessment. Georisk Assess. Manag. Risk Eng. Syst. Geohazards 2015, 9, 59–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. de Ruiter, M.C.; Couasnon, A.; Homberg, M.J.C.v.D.; Daniell, J.E.; Gill, J.C.; Ward, P.J. Why we can no longer ignore consecutive disasters. Earth’s Futur. 2020, 8, e2019EF001425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Yang, J.; Yan, Y.; Yang, J.; Wang, L.; Wan, X.; Zheng, H.; Liao, X.; Lei, M.; Chen, T. Dynamics of multiple stakeholders’ benefits due to mining area environmental remediation based on risk reduction and ecosystem services. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 419, 138338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Cornelissen, H.; Watson, I.; Adam, E.; Malefetse, T. Challenges and strategies of abandoned mine rehabilitation in South Africa: The case of asbestos mine rehabilitation. J. Geochem. Explor. 2019, 205, 106354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Venkateswarlu, K.; Nirola, R.; Kuppusamy, S.; Thavamani, P.; Naidu, R.; Megharaj, M. Abandoned metalliferous mines: Ecological impacts and potential approaches for reclamation. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2016, 15, 327–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Louloudis, G.; Roumpos, C.; Mertiri, E.; Pavloudakis, F.; Karalidis, K. Remote Sensing Data and Indices to Support Water Management: A Holistic Post-mining Approach for Lignite Mining in Greece. Mine Water Environ. 2023, 42, 618–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 16 04048 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram for the article selection process.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram for the article selection process.
Sustainability 16 04048 g001
Sustainability 16 04048 g002
Figure 2. Mining heritage reuse risk assessment framework.
Figure 2. Mining heritage reuse risk assessment framework.
Sustainability 16 04048 g002
Table 1. Keyword selection.
Table 1. Keyword selection.
Mining HeritageReuseRisk
Mining sitesReutilization
Rebuild
Sustainability
Sustainable use		Uncertainty
Threat
Hazard
Post-mining
Mining wasteland
Mine park
Mining site restoration
Abandoned mines
Illegal mining
Table 2. Database search result.
Table 2. Database search result.
DatabaseSearch FormResult
WoS(TS = (“mining heritage” OR “mining site*” OR “post-mining” OR “mining wasteland*” OR “min* park” OR “mining site restoration” OR “abandoned mines” OR “illegal mining”)) AND (TS = (“reuse” OR “reutilization” OR “rebuil*”OR “sustainab*” OR “sustainable use”)) AND (TS = (“risk ” OR “uncertainty “ OR “threat” OR “hazard”))
Refined by: timespan 2000-01-01 to 2023-12-31; Language: English		98
EI((((“mining heritage” OR “ mining site*” OR “ post-mining “ OR “ mining wasteland*” OR “min* park” OR “mining site restoration” OR “abandoned mines” OR “illegal mining”) WN KY) AND ((“reuse” OR “reutilization” OR “rebuil*” OR “sustainab*” OR “sustainable use”) WN KY)) AND ((“risk “ OR “ uncertainty “ OR “threat” OR “hazard”) WN KY))
Refined by: Year: 2000–2023; Language: English		73
Wiley““mining heritage” OR “mining site*” OR “ post-mining “ OR “ mining wasteland*” OR “min* park” OR “mining site restoration” OR “abandoned mines” OR “illegal mining”“ and ““reuse” OR “reutilization” OR “rebuil*” OR “ sustainable use” OR “ sustainab*”“ and ““risk “ OR “uncertainty” OR “threat” OR “hazard””
Applied filter: 2000–2023; Language: English		123
Table 3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Table 3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Inclusion CriteriaExclusion Criteria
Case studyNot case study
ReuseNon-reuse
RiskNothing to do with risk
Table 4. List of articles included for systematic review.
Table 4. List of articles included for systematic review.
TitleYearCountryAuthorModel/MethodologyNature of Research
Risk Analysis of a Residential Area Close to the Tailing Dams of an Ex-Foundry 2012Mexico[36]IEUBK modelQuantitative and qualitative
combination
Grazing as a post-mining land use: A conceptual model of the risk factors2012Australia[13]The conceptual modelQuantitative study
The Numerical Map of Known Mine Shafts in Wallonia: A Useful Tool for Land Planning and Risk Management 2015Belgium[37]Georeferencing methodQuantitative and qualitative
combination
Risk Management Approach for Revitalization of Post-mining Areas 2020Poland[38]Risk reduction assessment, benefits analysis,
qualitative criteria analysis		Quantitative and qualitative
combination
Transforming Brownfields as Tourism Destinations and Their Sustainability on the Example of Slovakia 2020Slovakia[39]Questionnaire surveyQuantitative and qualitative
combination
Prospect of abandoned metal mining sites from a hydrogeochemical perspective2020Malaysia[40]APHA Standard MethodsQuantitative study
A framework for assessing hazards related to pit lakes: application on European case studies 2023Czech, Poland, Romania, France[26]The risk analysis methodologyQuantitative and qualitative
combination
Risk Assessment of Mining Heritage Reuse in Public–Private-Partnership Mode Based on Improved Matter–Element Extension Model 2023China[15]Matter–element extension modelQuantitative study
Remediating and Reusing Abandoned Mining Sites in U.S. Metropolitan Areas: Raising Visibility and Value2023United States[41]Matched pairs, discriminant analysis statistical testsQuantitative and qualitative
combination
Reclaiming abandoned mine tailings ponds for agricultural use: Opportunities and challenges 2023China[42]/Qualitative study
Post-Mining Multi-Hazard Assessment for Sustainable Development2023France[14]Multi-hazard assessmentQuantitative study
Challenges Related to the Transformation of Post-Mining Underground Workings into Underground Laboratories2023EU[43]Risk matrix methodQuantitative and qualitative
combination
Table 5. Risk variables identified in mining heritage reuse.
Table 5. Risk variables identified in mining heritage reuse.
Environmental RiskStudy IDMining RiskStudy IDSocial RiskStudy ID
Ground control[42,43]Fire/Blasting[13,14,41,43]Economy[42,43]
Gases[43]Ventilation[43]Policy, government[15,42,43]
Seismic activity[26,38,43]Machinery[43]Contractor [15]
Radiation[43]Dust[43]Civilian [15,39,41],
Water pollution[43]Subsidence[37,41],
Ground collapse/hole[14,37]Landslides[26,37],
Flooding/ drainage[14,26,38,42]Rock falls[26,37],
Soil pollution/structure[36,40,42]Clay-shrinkage[14]
Metal pollution[41,42]Workplace risk[43]
Surrounding environmental risk[13,15,39]Infrastructure-related risk[14,15,39,43]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Guo, S.; Yang, S.; Liu, C. Mining Heritage Reuse Risks: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4048. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104048

AMA Style

Guo S, Yang S, Liu C. Mining Heritage Reuse Risks: A Systematic Review. Sustainability. 2024; 16(10):4048. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104048

Chicago/Turabian Style

Guo, Shuangyan, Shan Yang, and Canjiao Liu. 2024. "Mining Heritage Reuse Risks: A Systematic Review" Sustainability 16, no. 10: 4048. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104048

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop