A Methodology Combining IDEF0 and Weighted Risk Factor Analysis for the Strategic Planning of Mine Reclamation

Abstract

The reclamation of lignite surface mines is a long-term commitment of high complexity. These reclamation projects consist of land use repurposing, reinstatement of landforms and landscape, remediation of polluted soils and water bodies, restoration of ecosystems, and other related activities, which are usually developed when mines enter the ultimate phase of their operational life. Nowadays, reclamation is supported by regulatory settings and legislative provisions, which motivate the affected communities to move towards a circular economy and sustainable development. This paper investigates the geoenvironmental and socioeconomic problems of reclamation and draws research questions on how the strategic planning of a reclamation project can be performed and how the relevant project risks can be investigated and managed. In turn, a prototype methodology based on experts’ judgment is suggested with a case study combining: (a) the IDEF0 (Integrated DEFinition Function) modelling technique, as a low cost and easy-to-develop tool enabling strategic planning of reclamation projects, and (b) the Weighted Risk Factor analysis (WRF) as a suitable method for effective risk analysis and response planning in post-mining frameworks. Finally, a discussion on the methodology and proposals for further research are provided.

1. Introduction

Many countries have revised their energy policy to encourage greater low-carbon energy production in recent years by promoting new and cleaner technologies such as hydrogen, solar, and wind systems [1]. Moreover, the natural gas share in the international energy balance follows a growing trend, intended to reduce the general cost of energy and gaseous emissions, according to the principles of the Paris Agreement (2015) for global climate change. As a result, the demand for coal for primary energy production has been lowered [2], while numerous mines worldwide will de-escalate or terminate their operation [3,4]. In parallel, laws and regulatory settings encouraging projects for the sustainable reclamation of mined lands are coming into force [5] as motivation for the communities affected by the declining mining industry to seek business opportunities in markets of the sustainable development and circular economy, which is the fastest-growing sector of the economy on a worldwide basis [6].

Reclamation is an industrial practice extensively analyzed and referred to in the literature. Knabe [7] defines reclamation as “the restoration of a fertile and pleasing landscape, either for economic return from agriculture and forestry or for the sake of recreation”. A recent approach defines reclamation as “the practice of returning lands that have been disturbed to a use equal to or better than that which existed before disturbance” [8].

The reclamation of surface coal mines was introduced in the extracting industry many decades ago, as a technical practice and solution for the environmental impacts [8] caused by the rapidly increasing mining sector in Germany and in intensively industrialized Europe throughout the 20th century; Kraemer [9] explained the strong water repellence observed in coal spoil banks, which prevents water infiltration during summer, as a result of fossil wax’s presence; Kopp [10] investigated the role of hydrophobic compounds of humus and iron in the activities of amelioration of the slopes of the disposed soils in the lignite mines; Hochhaeuser [11] and Wemper [12] examined the reforestation techniques focused on the species of trees and plantation which are suited to the microclimate and ecological conditions of each mine; Knabe [7] provided an analytical and content-specific review of the excavation practices, landscape alterations, and the methods of reclamation applied in mines of Ruhr, Aachen, and Saar River basins and stressed the criticality of reclamation as an activity to be undertaken during the operating life of the mine and following its closure.

Nowadays, the international coal mining industry is declining, although global coal production figures determined by the Chinese energy policy do not confirm this development. At the same time, the reclamation of surface coal mines is promoted by governments as part of their policies for the transition to “green” energy production technologies and also as an industrial practice of rapid development around the world, with beneficial returns to society, the environment, and the economy. Countries such as the UK [13], Germany [14], India [15], the Czech Republic [16], Australia [17], Greece [18], and the USA [19] have set up funding bodies to recover from the environmental impacts identified in closing or abandoned mines [4,20]. There are various acts, laws, and directives enforcing the perspectives of reclamation and operating as drivers of productive and beneficial interaction of society, the economy, and industry. There are many important regulatory initiatives at present, such as the “Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act-SMCRA” (1977) in the USA [8,21]; the Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament of 15/03/2006 “On the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC” [22]; the ten sustainable development principles proposed by the International Council of Mining and Metals—ICMM (2003) [22]; the European Community “Development of a guidance document on best practices in the Extractive Waste Management Plans-Circular Economy Action” (2019) [22]; the “Guidelines for Mines and Sustainable Development”, United Nations Berlin-II (2002) [23]; and the “Overview of Best Practice Environmental Management in Mining-Commonwealth of Australia” (1995) [23].

From the project management point of view, reclamations are capital-intensive, resource-demanding, and multidisciplinary, and long-term projects are highly complex. This type of project can be understood through various scientific and methodological approaches, which may differ from one mine to another [24,25]. The management of reclamation is mine-specific and, in practice, does not follow a standard project execution philosophy. This organizational complexity and heterogeneity create uncertainties and risks that may affect the planning and execution of a reclamation project [25,26]. Furthermore, there are many critical problems that mining managers and operators have to consider as a prerequisite for the proper planning of a reclamation project. These problems can be grouped into two categories:

(a)

Geoenvironmental problems related to soil disturbance, landscape fragmentation, alterations of landforms, instability of slopes, degradation of ecosystems, biodiversity loss, water toxicity, loss of fertile soils, and, in general, any other impacts or consequences to the natural environment due to intensive extracting operations;

(b)

Socioeconomic problems related to the impacts on the communities because of the transformation of a mine from a heavily industrialized plant to a sustainable and new land use system. The most common consequences of these problems are unemployment, income losses, social conflicts, disputes among stakeholders, permitting delays, social disruptions, and any other impacts affecting the local economy and production, the quality of life, and the livelihood of the affected populations.

Regarding the geoenvironmental problems, Imboden and Moczek [27] provided an empirical analysis of risks and opportunities from the remedial methods adopted for replantation and recovery of biodiversity performed in the RWE Hambach lignite mine in Germany. Lessons from the problems of ecological restorations in China’s closing mines are presented in the work of [28]. Tropek and Konvicka [29] assessed the problems of landscape fragmentation in extended areas of mines in the Czech Republic and recommended that proactive project management methods are applied before any restoration framework is developed. Loch and Vacher [30] investigated the erosion and water ingress phenomena causing contamination of mine waters. McCullough [17] investigated the effects on physical and chemical characteristics of the waste rock dump material caused by intermixing of heterogeneous materials in the disposed soil volumes. McCullogh and Lund, and Sloss, as well as Moodley et al. [20,31,32] demonstrated the significance of the backfilling methods used in the reinstatement of holds, pits, and hollows of mines and the effects of acid mine drainage phenomena as a high-criticality problem of reclamation. Sloss [20] examined the use of coal by-products in mined sites backfilling works and their suitability for use as substitute natural rock residuals and improper soil volumes. The same author investigated the return of vegetation and replantation of trees as a measure of ecological restoration in extensively mined sites. Gammons and Duaine [33] assessed the contamination of mine waters as a crucial managerial problem for the organization and planning of mine closure and reclamation planning. Other authors assessed risks caused by the technological and natural hazards in the operation, closure, and post-closure phase of open-surface lignite mines [34,35,36]. Bradshaw [13] investigated the restoration from the viewpoint of the self-sustaining (physical) processes and especially the natural succession; the same author [37] investigated the ecological restoration of mined lands and the relationship between macronutrients in reclaimed mine soils and aboveground plant biomass on the external soil dumps slopes in the lignite mines of central Poland; Tischew et al. [38] presented the edaphological parameters and data collected/used in reclamation studies for the spontaneous vegetation species applied in mines of former East Germany; Kasztelewicz [39] presented an empirical analysis of field engineering methods applied in land reclamations at opencast mines in Poland.

Regarding the socioeconomic problems, the most important aspects are the health, safety, and environmental (HSE) impacts on the surrounding communities, from the early exploration up to the closure phase of a mine [40]. Many researchers are also analysing the regulatory and socioeconomic parameters of reclamation and restoration of surface mines, the issues of mining projects’ public acceptance, and the determination of the marginal environmental cost in the spirit of the Aarhus Convention [41,42]. The effects of recovery actions in former or closing coal mines are analyzed in [43]. The challenges and obstacles of the post-mining economy are presented by [44] based on lessons from South Africa’s mine closing initiations. Yonk et al. [21] analyzed and reviewed the SMCRA policy and implications and the regulatory effects this act entails for the reclamation projects and suggestions for improvements. The psychological effects on individuals and groups involved in the mining systems in various ways are reported by Stacey et al. [23] based on the experience of South Africa’s mine closures. Haney and Shkaratan [45] analyzed the socioeconomic impacts on the mine-related communities based on empirical evidence from relevant actions in Romania, Russia, and Ukraine. Research on the socioeconomic effects of mine closing in Australia was presented in the work of [46], while the role of various stakeholders (focus groups, local communities, Non-Governmental Organizations—NGOs, permitting agencies, etc.) and the stakeholders’ engagement is demonstrated in the works of [47,48], as a critical issue of achieving the regulatory compliance and social acceptance of reclamation. Finally, Swason [49] presented the practical problems of how to manage the pit lakes opened during a coal mine’s life cycle and the role of stakeholders in this issue.

The literature mentioned above shows that reclamation projects are multidisciplinary, large-scale human interventions developed in large geographical areas (where the mine’s surface covers tens of km²), which must be investigated by processes capable of resolving complex technical, environmental, and socioeconomic problems. The crucial character of these problems is intensified further because of the long duration of lignite exploitation activities. However, the reclamation projects face various critical risks since the reclamation solutions and methods have to be implemented timely, safely, and within the approved budgetary provisions. From this viewpoint, planning an appropriate reclamation strategy is revealed to be a sine qua non prerequisite for the project and risk management provisions and organization settings required for “returning a mine to nature” to be quickly, effectively, and efficiently carried out.

This paper aims to present a prototype methodology for the analysis, design, and implementation of the strategic planning of a mine reclamation project. The reclamation project has been considered a process-specific business entity and, as such, is represented by a widely applied business process modelling technique. The methodology includes the assessment of reclamation planning risks and the related response planning provisions and mitigation measures and actions. The methodology and the reclamation risks are investigated in close cooperation with mining, environmental, and socioeconomic experts.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 1 provides an extended literature review (already presented in the previous subsection) on the reclamation frameworks and problems; Section 2 presents the problems of strategic planning for mine reclamation and addresses main research questions; Section 3 justifies and describes the steps of the suggested methodology, consisting of the IDEF0 (Integrated DEFinition Function) modelling technique applied for representation of the strategic planning process model and the Weighted Risk Factor (WRF) analysis performed to investigate the likelihood and impacts, where the relative weights of risk factors are calculated using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method; Section 4 presents the development of the methodology in a case study of a Greek mine entering the closure phase; Section 5 discusses the results the methodology and the theoretical techno-economic issues, and, finally, Section 6 presents the conclusions and proposals for further research.

2. Strategic Planning: Overview and Research Questions

In project management, the critical issues of effective strategic project planning are [50,51]: (a) the definition of the end(s), or the goal(s), which represent the tangible results of successful project implementation, and (b) the means, which refer to resources, functional elements, and materials [52].

In a mine reclamation project, the strategic goal is to prepare an effective project execution plan ensuring the sustainable transformation of a closing mine. The available means can be used by certain processes to transform specific inputs into outputs [53,54]. These processes are divided further into sets of tasks and activities that deal with the mine reclamation project as a business management entity [55,56]. The execution of a reclamation project involves human resources, information, documentation, a time schedule, equipment, decisions, and any other valuable aspect required for developing a techno-economically feasible, cost-effective, socioenvironmentally reasonable and legally compliant reclamation plan. In other words, the project plan must consider the reclamation project as an implementable technical entity with a robust business profile and, therefore, fundable [42].

The reclamation planning must be based on detailed investigations and field surveys (desktop studies, satellite and remote sensing imagery data analysis, and site reconnaissance) [57] for verification of the mine’s situation, supported by concrete technical solutions and proposals on how, when, and with which method the reclamation activities will take place. Therefore, the mine overview, considered for the elaboration of a reclamation project execution plans, refers mainly to:

-

Understanding the public policies and legislative/regulatory constraints;

-

Identification of the reclamation project business processes and their functionality;

-

Definition of alternative reclamation methods, e.g., spontaneous succession, natural restoration, hybrid solutions, etc. [16,58];

-

Analysis of the alterations in morphology;

-

Investigation of soil and water quality;

-

Understanding of the geoenvironmental and geotechnical problems;

-

Selection of methods for improvement of soil and waste dumps;

-

Identification of methods for recycling excavated soil wastes and ore residuals;

-

Assessment of socioeconomic impacts;

-

Delineation of the new/improved land use system;

-

Elaboration of engineering solutions and site specifications;

-

Selection of the optimal reclamation methods that support the development of the new land use system proposed for the project concerned;

-

Effective stakeholder engagement;

-

Obtaining reclamation permits and site development licenses;

-

Consideration of the specific project’s bankability and funding requirements.

In general, many aspects and factors must be thoroughly analyzed and incorporated into the analysis and design of reclamation planning [59]. In addition, it is worth noting that a comprehensive assessment of the reclamation activities’ development is required, as the transition to sustainability must be fully justified as a cause of generating cumulative positive effects on the already heavily disturbed mined sites.

The shaping of robust reclamation strategy planning is a complex issue and requires a synergy between experts from various fields of science and technology, such as mining and project managers, environmentalists, socioeconomists, geologists, GIS specialists, etc. [24]. In parallel, a review of scientific literature, lessons learned, case studies, technical databases, and feedback from the historical records of mining and the opinion of stakeholders and affected communities is required. Additionally, reclamation planning is becoming particularly difficult, as the heterogeneity of mined sites and the extent of land disturbance differ from one mine to another. Thus, the uncertainties and the complexity of reclamation planning are mine-specific, and the risks which might affect the execution of the reclamation project, in the long run, must be thoroughly analyzed early on.

From the above, it is assumed that the repurposing and transition of a closing mine to sustainability and circular economy draws critical research questions. In practice, all the involved stakeholders must answer how, why, and to which extent the strategic planning of a mine reclamation would be performed. Moreover, they must identify the appropriate methodological approach and the tools and methods that best fit the reclamation project’s characteristics and risks. Therefore, the main research questions identified are the following:

(a)

How can the strategic planning of an extended and long-term reclamation project be analyzed and structured with content-specific functional elements?

(b)

What are the fundamental strategic processes by which a reclamation project can be structured as an integrated and multidisciplinary business model consisting of specific technical and administrative activities?

(c)

Which tool(s)/method(s) are suitable for the analysis, design, and implementation of the reclamation project processes?

(d)

Which risk analysis method is recommended for the effective, qualitative, and quantitative assessment of reclamation planning risks?

(e)

How can the experts’ knowledge and insight support the response to the previous questions?

The following paragraphs describe a post-mining strategic planning methodology and a framework for integrating functional and risk management approaches for post-mining reclamation projects.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Suggested Methodology

The suggested methodology adopts the theory and practice of project and risk management to develop a business model applicable for the execution of post-mining reclamation projects [59]. The methodology demonstrates a combination and synthesis of (i) the functional and multidisciplinary nature of a reclamation project that consists of specific processes and (ii) the in-depth (inter-disciplinary/intra-disciplinary) evaluation of the reclamation risks by exploiting experts’ judgment and knowledge.

The methodology was developed (Figure 1) based on the following key assumptions:

(a)

The reclamation projects consist of tasks with technical and business content specific to the geoenvironmental and socioeconomic problems. Thus, the project’s strategic planning can be performed using a business process modelling technique. In this paper, the IDEF0 technique was adopted as the most suitable tool [59];

(b)

The assessment of reclamation risks (identification, probability, impact analysis, response development; see also: [55,60]) is crucial for the successful organization, development, and execution of reclamation projects. The earlier and proactive assessment of risks, the time needed and cost overruns is required later on in the execution of reclamation activities. Weighted Risk Factor (WRF) analysis was adopted as a tool for combining theoretical and practical purposes of risk management in project environments [61]. The relative weight of each risk factor was evaluated using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method;

(c)

The strategic planning and the risk assessment of any project is a group effort. For this reason, the contribution of experts is indispensable and particularly valuable. For example, a team of experts can provide valuable support in developing the IDEF0 model design and validating the AHP application, evaluating reclamation risk likelihoods and impacts, and the response planning.

3.2. Validation of Applied Techniques

3.2.1. The IDEF0 Process Modelling Technique

The business and industrial operations consist of processes interacting with each other. Processes are functions transforming inputs into outputs using particular resources and fulfilling specific constraints [53,62,63]. In recent decades, several methods and techniques for the visualization and modelling processes have been developed, known as business process modelling (BPM). The aims of these methods are: (a) to understand, discover, model, analyze, measure, improve, optimize, and automate the functionality of an industrial or a business system, and (b) to introduce changes for the improvement [64], and/or reengineering, of a system’s functionality [65].

One BPM method is IDEF0, which is a task ontology used broadly as a business process representation tool, a systems engineering modelling standard and a technique for the project process analysis and design [63,64]. There is a vast amount of literature on using IDEF0 as a standard for systems engineering modelling and a technique for the project process analysis and design [66,67]. In addition, IFED0 is used in the analysis and design of industrial processes and manufacturing systems, in the planning of aerospace and information systems, business, finance, and in many other fields of science and technology [68]. For this reason, IDEF0 was chosen by the authors as it better suits the design of an integrated model for the strategic planning of a reclamation project. The acronym IDEF0 stems from “Integrated DEFinition Function and modelling technique” [69]. The technique was initially developed in the mid-1970s and the late 1980s and adopted by the US Air Force as an integrated computer-aided manufacturing (ICAM) initiative [70]. In 1993, IDEF0 was validated as an IEEE standard and part of the ISO library of standards [71]. Examples of systems designed using IDEF0 are: a process model developed for the visualization of geometallurgical flowsheets [72]; a structured methodology for enterprise modelling in UK organizations [70]; a model for the management of projects in the construction industry [73]; a computer-aided simulation tool for the design and deployment of a knowledge management system [74]; a model for the analysis of social, economic, technical, and environmental components of energy systems [75]; a methodology for the strategic justification of investments in enterprise-wide technologies and also as a methodology for assisting small companies in implementing continuous operational improvement [76]; a tool for supporting the design of risk management processes applicable for the infrastructure projects [63]; and a tool for the strategic planning of projects for reclamation and repurposing of surface lignite mines [60]. Finally, a substantial review of IDEF0’s contribution to the strategic management, planning, and automation of industrial systems is provided in the form of “proof of concept” research by [77].

IDEF0 combines graphics and text entities, and its syntax reflects the ontology of processes under investigation in a systematic, hierarchically (top-down) structured, and visually consistent workflow diagram using: (a) box diagrams to define the processes (or activities), (b) arrows to represent the data flows, interlinks and feedback loops among processes, and (c) entities that every single process requires for its activation. All of these are combined to enable the integrated composition of processes in a solid and functional model: inputs and outputs (data or objects), mechanisms (e.g., materials, resources, knowledge and/or other means required for the processes’ operation), and controls (policies, protocols, decisions, legislative/regulatory constraints, contracts, time plans). These entities are defined by the acronym ICOM [71,78]. IDEF0 is a top-bottom task ontology showing the level of analysis each process is dealing with, where the top event, or parent diagram, is symbolized by A-0, referred to as the “A-minus zero” element, and represents the primary process of the system, which allows for further analysis. During the top event, the constituent processes are merged at a lower, more detailed level of analysis. In the same way, the constituent processes can become parental events of a process merged at a lower level of analysis, and so on.

3.2.2. The Weighted Risk Factor Analysis

Risk is defined [55] as “an uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has a negative or positive effect on a project’s objectives”. This definition is used to express the uncertainties that may entail failures or opportunities in a project. In practice, however, risks are mainly assessed to investigate and manage the failures that potentially affect a project’s successful execution. The notion of risk involves two concepts: the likelihood of an event, L, and the impact of this event, I, when it takes place. Risk is the product of the likelihood of occurrence multiplied by the impact of an event [79] (Equation (1)):

$$Risk=F\left(Likelihood,Impact\right)=Likelihood\times Impact$$

(1)

Many risks have potential effects on mine reclamation projects [1,26]. The sources of these risks are, for example, the complexity and long duration of reclamation activities, the nature of the geoenvironmental and socioeconomic problems, and/or budgetary and regulatory constraints, which address various uncertainties and influences in terms of scope, cost, time, and performance. In the strategic planning of a reclamation project, assessing risks is crucial and deals with identifying risks and quantifying the likelihood and impacts of each risk. The substantial risk assessment enables the detailed risk monitoring and response plan and analyzes how the control, prevention, mitigation, and/or elimination of project failures can be effectively managed during the project life cycle. The literature refers to numerous methods and techniques of risk assessment embodying practices of industrial safety and production control (failure mode and effect analysis, cause and effect diagrams, fault tree analysis, etc.) [67] and provisions of international standards, such as in [80,81,82]. In this paper, the authors suggest adopting the Weighted Risk Factor (WRF) analysis, which allows for the weighted balancing of various aspects affecting the execution of a project, such as environmental, psychological, societal, and economic factors, among others. The theoretical basis and practical extensions of WRF analysis, along with a discussion on the advantages and drawbacks of the method, are provided by [61].

As a result, the WRF analysis constitutes a solid basis for the management of risks in project environments, as also advised by [83,84]. Therefore, in the present research, WRF analysis was adopted since (a) it is the method most suited to the project risk management practices, (b) it uses the results of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) for the determination of the vector of the relative weights of risk factors (RFs), (c) it is flexible and can be easily customized for different types of projects, and (d) it enables the qualitative and quantitative analysis of risk likelihood and impact through semi-structured interviews with the experts and, finally, in the elaboration of risk response planning.

The typical steps of a WRF analysis are [61,85]:

• Step 1: identification of risks and risk dependencies with the IDEF0 model activities;
• Step 2: definitions:

  (a)

  $n$ is the number of risk sources; $i=1, 2, \dots , n: n\in N$;

  (b)

  m is the number of risks; $j=1, 2,\dots , m: m\in N$ ($N$: the set of natural numbers).

• Step 3: identification of the weighted risk factors W_i, where $1\le i\le n$ and $1\le j\le m$, with an effect on the project objectives, using the AHP method;
• Step 4: composition of the likelihood and impact severity, or risk exposure, matrix;
• Step 5: identification of the priority weight, $W_i$, of each risk factor with an effect on the project, where

  $$\sum W_i=\left(W_1+W_2+\cdots W_n\right)=1; 0<W_i<1; W_i\ne 0; \forall i: i=1,2,\cdots , n;$$
• Step 6: computation of the Composite Likelihood Factor of risk j, $CL{F}_j$, (Equation (2)), as a weighted average (using the formula of the expected value):

  $$CL{F}_j=\sum \left(L_{jn}\times W_n\right)=L_{j1}\times W_1+L_{j2}\times W_2+\cdots +L_{jn}\times W_n$$

  (2)

  where $L_{j1},L_{j2,}\dots L_{jn},$ are the likelihoods corresponding to $n$ risk sources;

Equation (2) applies for all risks identified, $\forall j: j=1, 2,\cdots ,m$.

7.

Step 7: computation of the Composite Impact Factor of the risk $j$, $CI{F}_j$, as a weighted average (using the formula of the expected value) (Equation (3)):

$$CI{F}_j=\sum \left(I_{jn}\times W_n\right)=I_{j1}\times W_1+I_{j2}\times W_2+\cdots +I_{jn}\times W_n$$

(3)

where $I_{j1}$,$I_{j2}$,$\cdots ,I_{jn}$ are the impacts corresponding to $n$ risk sources;

Equation (3) applies for all risks identified $\forall j: j=1, 2,\cdots ,m$.

8.

Step 8: computation of the risk exposure, $R{E}_j$ (Equation (4)):

$$\begin{gathered} R{E}_j=\left(CL{F}_j\right)\times \left(CI{F}_j\right)=\sum \left(L_{jn}\times W_n\right)\times \sum \left(I_{jn}\times W_n\right) \\ \forall i:i=1, 2,\cdots ,n \mathrm{and} \forall j:j=1, 2,\cdots , m \end{gathered}$$

(4)

9.

Step 9: performing the risk response planning analysis, presenting the main actions required for every single risk, based on the $R{E}_j$ values for every identified risk, $j$.

3.2.3. The Analytical Hierarchy Process

The AHP is a multicriteria group decision-making method with high effectiveness that is widely developed in academia, industry, businesses, and project management as a problem-solving tool [26,83,84,85]. The popularity of the AHP has extended into many different fields of science and technology, while applications of the method in mining science have been reported in the literature [85,86]. The AHP enables experts to use their knowledge, insight, and professional experience to analyze a decision-making problem as a hierarchically structured model, including evaluation criteria and alternative solutions. The technique applied to quantify criteria and alternatives is pairwise comparisons, which is carried out through interviews with experts or using properly structured questionnaires delivered to experts [84,85,87,88]. In doing so, every criterion corresponds to a specific relative weight used in the calculations required to determine the performance of each alternative. The AHP was applied in this research to calculate the relative weight, W_i, of each RF.

The literature presents views on the research performed for weighted risk analysis and impact assessments in project environments. Dey [60] proposed a tree-decision-making model based on the quantitative evaluation of risk likelihood using the AHP method with an impact assessment and response planning, aiming to effectively manage failures in an Indian refinery. The same author applied the AHP to evaluate the weights of criteria in an assessment to select an optimum (low-risk) route corridor of a cross-country petroleum pipeline in India [89]. In mining projects, the effects of natural hazards on surface lignite mines were investigated. A combined AHP/TOPSIS (technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution) methodology for proactive risk and resilience management in various disastrous scenarios was developed by [26]. The same authors [24] proposed an AHP methodology to manage various technological and geoenvironmental risks in mining operations effectively.

3.2.4. Experts’ Judgement

Expert judgment is a widely applied practice in project management [90], in which teams of experts, based on skill, expertise, or specialized knowledge, are called to provide judgment, or consultancy, perform specialized studies, or cooperate with the project team(s) to solve various managerial and technical problems. Expert judgment has also been proven useful in performing project risk assessments [55]. In this research, a team of five experts was engaged to provide support for the following aspects:

-

Contribution to the conceptual design and validation of the IDEF0 strategic model;

-

Definition of the priority weights of the risk sources;

-

Definition of risks correlation/dependency with the strategic processes;

-

Identification of planning risk sources;

-

Contribution to the AHP performance for the calculation of the relative weights, W_i, of each risk factor [87,88,91];

-

Risk data collection: quantification of risk likelihoods and impacts of $L_{jn}$ and $I_{jn}$;

-

Composition of the response planning register.

The team consisted of five senior experts with more than 20 years of experience in coal mine closure projects and sustainability management:

-

Mining Operations Manager (Ex1);

-

Lignite Mine Site Manager (Ex2);

-

Project Management Expert in projects in the energy sector (Ex3);

-

Socioeconomic Senior Expert (Ex4);

-

Public Official with expertise in sustainability and permits (Ex5).

4. Case Study

4.1. Reclamation of a Closing Lignite Mine

The proposed methodology was applied to a typical coal surface mining area in Greece entering the closing phase. The mines are equipped with bucket wheel excavators, conveyors, and spreaders, while other non-continuous mining machinery and infrastructures are in place (Figure 2).

The mines provide lignite to two power plants located in the centre of the lignite basin with a total remaining capacity of 600 MW. The mines have been continuously operating for 50 years, while the mine’s remaining life is 2–4 years. The area of the mining fields covers approximately 30 km². The mines’ ground surface is mainly hilly, with altitudes ranging between +350 m and 420 m above sea level. The lignite deposit has a multiple-layered form, and the lignite seams are horizontally placed. The mine depth ranges between 50 and 110 m.

The outside waste dumping areas are located at a distance ranging from 100 m to about 1 km E and W of the mines and are completed. Therefore, the waste material from the exploitation activities is transported to the inside dumping area. A river in the SE/NW direction was initially located in the mining area. The river course has been partially modified for exploitation needs. Before mining activity began, the land was mainly used for agricultural and forestry. Many affected areas will resume these activities following the mine closure, while photovoltaic parks will be constructed in selected locations. Moreover, two lakes have been planned to fill the final pit voids.

4.2. The IDEF0 Reclamation Process Model

The IDEF0 process model aims to represent the structure and functionality of the reclamation project processes’ interrelationship and development. The analysis and conceptual design of the model were based on the ascertainment of experts’ domain knowledge, using the IDEF0 visualization rules to reflect the workflow of the strategic planning processes explicitly. The team of experts participated in two (2) workshops. The first was a semi-structured interview allowing for the exchange of opinions on a strategic level of analysis to pre-screen the top event of the process model, the philosophy, the functional perception, and the scope of each strategic process with the constituent sub-processes. After the ICOM entities’ definition, a second workshop was arranged to review, verify, improve, and validate the outlined project process model. The main processes of the outlined IDEF0 model are [59]:

(a)

“A-0-Strategic Planning of a Post-Mining Reclamation Project” (top-event): is the concept diagram identifying the strategic target of the reclamation planning;

(b)

“A1-Setting-Up the Strategic Context”: refers to the activities a mining company performs to understand the sustainability policies, define alternative reclamation strategies, analyze the overall socioeconomic impacts, evaluate the expectations of stakeholders and prepare the baseline techno-economic assessments by which a reclamation project can be proven a financially and socio-environmentally feasible business entity; the analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) for the mine transition to sustainability is also foreseen in this sub-process;

(c)

“A2-Geo-Environmental Data Collection and Situational Analysis of the Mine”: refers to the detailed geoenvironmental analysis of the mine, engineering and technical design studies for the erection/construction of the infrastructures required for the sustainable reclamation, taking into consideration the 3R (and/or other) circular economy policies (reuse, recycle and reduce materials and energy consumption; see also: [22]. The same sub-process includes the elaboration of an integrated environmental and social impacts assessment justifying the impacts and mitigation measures/policies, which each alternative reclamation solution deals with;

(d)

“A3-Evaluating and Selecting the Appropriate Reclamation Strategy” refers to a participatory decision-making process, where the most advantageous reclamation strategy is selected through an accredited and scientifically substantial group decision method supported by mining and environmental experts, stakeholders, society key informants, and representatives of the competent authorities;

(e)

“A4-Developing the Project Execution Plan”: refers to the establishment of a project management system by which the post-mining sustainability framework can be executed according to the financial, quality, safety, and performance principles, aligned with the social and corporate responsibility policies of the mining company and the regulatory, environmental and social compliance constraints/requirements set by the authorities and stakeholders.

Figure 3 presents the A-0 concept diagram, and Figure 4 shows the top-bottom IDEF0 ontology, where the top event is decomposed into sub-processes and their constituent activities (the IDEF0 “Tree-View” task ontology (see also: [92])). Figure 5 reflects the overall structure and functionality (second level of analysis) of the IDEF0 process model with a workflow analysis involving sub-processes, ICOM entities, and their interlinks. Finally,

Table 1. a. Description of IDEF0 process model activities (adapted [59]); b. ICOM entities of the IDEF0 process model (adapted from [59]).

a. Description of IDEF0 Process Model Activities (Adapted from [59]).
Sub-Process-ID: “A1—Setting-up the Strategic Context”
A(1.1)	Analysis of sustainability policies	A(1.6)	Analysis of strengths and weaknesses
A(1.2)	Consideration of environmental impacts	A(1.7)	Scope pre-screening
A(1.3)	Consideration of socioeconomic impacts	A(1.8)	Preliminary time planning
A(1.4)	Investigation of reclamation/repurposing technologies	A(1.9)	Budgetary estimation of alternative reclamation scenarios
A(1.5)	First round of stakeholder engagement	A(1.10)	Outlining the concept of reclamation strategies
Sub-Process-ID: “A2—Geo-Environmental Data Collection and Situational Analysis of the Mine”
A(2.1)	Preparation of site layouts for the landscape and landforms	A(2.7)	Sampling of contaminated/polluted receptors (soil–water–air)
A(2.2)	Analysis of mine’s waste management records/procedures	A(2.8)	Impact analysis and mitigation measures
A(2.3)	Analysis of satellite imagery and remote sensing data	A(2.9)	Review of previous mine development plans and risk assessments
A(2.4)	Analysis of biotic, non-biotic, and ecological factors	A(2.10)	Considering the legislative constraints and development programs
A(2.5)	Analysis of socioeconomic factors, land use, and infrastructures	A(2.11)	Evaluating the mining material and space suitability for 3R initiatives
A(2.6)	Geological, geotechnical, and geophysical investigation	A(2.12)	Second round of stakeholder engagement
Sub-Process-ID: A3—“Evaluating and Selecting the Appropriate Reclamation Strategy”
A(3.1)	Identification of the alternative strategies	A(3.6)	Finalizing the cost analysis (for each strategy)
A(3.2)	Submission of the reclamation/repurposing plan to stakeholders	A(3.7)	Finalizing the feasibility assessment
A(3.3)	Public consultation	A(3.8)	Selection of strategy (by using a multicriteria decision-making method)
A(3.4)	Consideration of stakeholders’/authorities’ feedback	A(3.9)	Approval of the selected strategy
A(3.5)	Filling the gaps and reformulating the strategies
Sub-Process-ID: A4—“Developing the Project Execution Plan”
A(4.1)	Developing the project and construction management systems	A(4.4)	Work and cost breakdown analysis
A(4.2)	Preparation of tendering	A(4.5)	Set up of the quality, risk, and HSSE management systems
A(4.3)	Organization and planning of the project	A(4.6)	Set up of the environmental monitoring and management
		A(4.7)	Request for proposal (RfP) and bidder evaluation
b. ICOM Entities of the IDEF0 Process Model (Adapted from [59])
Description of Entities			Processes
			A1	A2	A3	A4
Mine decommissioning plan			I(1.1)	C(2.1)	C(3.1)	C(4.1)
Policies/regulations for the sustainable development and circular economy			I(1.2)		C(3.2)	C(4.2)
Mine company corporate and social responsibility			I(1.3)
Mine operation and field inspection archives			I(1.4)
Lessons learned			I(1.5)	I(2.3)	I(3.3)	O(4.4)
Prefeasibility assessment			O(1.1)	I(2.1)
Reclamation planning and timeline			O(1.2)	C(2.2)	C(3.3)	C(4.3)
Preliminary cost estimation (CAPEX and OPEX)			O(1.3)	C(2.3)	C(3.4)
Risk and natural hazard assessment			O(1.4)			C(4.4)
Stakeholders’ feedback (authorities, municipalities, NGOs, etc.)			O(1.5)		M(3.3)
Standards for quality, HSSE, and risk management			M(1.1)	M(2.1)		M(4.1)
Policies/instruments of International Finance Corporations (IFC)			M(1.2)
Business and financial analysis tools (SWOT, BCA, NPV/IRR, etc.)			M(1.3)
Legislation for occupational health and safety				C(2.4)		C(4.5)
Satellite imagery and remote sensing data				I(2.2)
Situational analysis of the mine				O(2.1)
Environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA)				O(2.2)	I(3.1)
Mine landscape and landform upgrading plan				O(2.3)		I(4.1)
Feasibility study (final)				O(2.4)	I(3.2)	I(4.2)
Engineering studies (specifications, technical reports, area layouts, etc.)				O(2.5)		I(4.3)
Design codes, standards, and best practices of the mining industry				M(2.2)		M(4.2)
Public consultation Minutes of Meeting (MOMs)/protocols					O(3.1)
Reclamation/repurposing strategy (selected)					O(3.2)	I(4.4)
Expert teams (managers, engineers, ecologists, financial analysts, etc.)			M(1.4)	M(2.3)	M(3.1)
Decision-making software tools (for AHP, TOPSIS, or other methods)					M(3.2)
Project development and execution plan						O(4.1)
Tender packages						O(4.2)
Detailed cost analysis						O(4.3)
Project and risk management tools (MS-Project, @Risk, etc.)			M(1.5)			M(4.3)
Environmental and social impact assessment mitigation measures/plans						M(4.4)

a shows the codification and description of all reclamation planning sub-processes and their identity (“Sub-Process-ID”), while Table 1b shows the ICOM entities corresponding to the identified sub-processes as reflected in the outlined reclamation project process model.

4.3. Identification of Risks

The risks with a potential effect on the reclamation planning processes were discussed and identified in workshops with the participation of experts. In addition, the empirical evidence and lessons learned from critical managerial, technical, and socioenvironmental problems and other related risks reported in past mine closures or reclamation projects and findings from the literature were analyzed in-depth and co-evaluated.

Table 2. Risk identification and dependency ⁽¹⁾ table.

Risk-ID	Risk Identification	A1 (2)	A2 (2)	A3 (2)	A4 (2)
R-01	Poor conceptual analysis of the strategic planning process model (IDEF0)	M	M	M	M
R-02	Lack of scientific knowledge and experience of the project team	H	H	H	H
R-03	Delays of the strategic activities’ execution	L	H	M	M
R-04	Weak points of sustainability legislation/policy	H	L	M	L
R-05	Lack of sustainability management knowledge	H	L	L	L
R-06	Unclear definition of the reclamation strategies	H	M	M	L
R-07	Defects of the mining company corporate policy	H	L	L	L
R-08	Deviations from restoration cost estimate (CAPEX, OPEX)	H	M	M	H
R-09	Inefficient stakeholder engagement/management	L	L	H	L
R-10	Poor field data collection (at the mine sites)	L	M	L	L
R-11	Poor situational analysis of the mine	L	H	L	L
R-12	Insufficient management of mine’s infrastructure/equipment	L	H	M	L
R-13	Inefficient environmental/social impact analysis	L	H	M	M
R-14	Reclamation/restoration activities’ deficiencies/failures	L	H	L	H
R-15	Reclamation/restoration activities’ scope extension	L	H	H	M
R-16	Selection of socioenvironmentally inappropriate land uses (post-mining era)	L	L	H	H
R-17	Failure to meet the requirements of society	M	H	M	M
R-18	Failure to meet the legal and regulatory requirements	M	L	H	L
R-19	Insufficient funding or failure to execute the funding schedule	L	L	L	H
R-20	Poor analysis of natural and technological hazards	L	M	M	H

⁽¹⁾ Defined by experts team. ⁽²⁾ Processes of the IDEF0 model (adapted from [59]). A1—Setting up the Strategic Context. A2—Geo-Environmental Data Collection and Situational Analysis of the Mine. A3—Evaluating and Selecting the Appropriate Reclamation Strategy. A4—Developing the Project Execution Plan.

presents twenty (20) risks of primary concern, their identity code (Risk-IDs), and the dependency of each risk with the sub-processes A1, A2, A3, and A4 of the IDEF0 model architecture. The dependency was classified by the experts team as low, medium, or high, reflecting the escalation of the uncertainty every single risk generates for each sub-process of the IDEF0 model.

4.4. Qualitative Risk Analysis

4.4.1. Risk Factors $\left(R{F}_S\right)$ and Priority Weights $\left(W_i\right)$

In project risk management, various risk sources might influence the progress and outcome of a project. There are various sources of risk considered in risk management assessments, such as organizational and managerial factors, uncertainties of the project environment, project time management misalignments, environmental and licensing constraints, financial and funding constraints, stakeholder engagement problems, etc. All these risk sources, which are expressed with the term risk factors $\left({RF}_S\right)$, may affect the project’s objectives on various levels of criticality [61]. In standard risk management practices, the risk factors which are usually assessed are [55]:

(a)

Technical performance risk factor $\left(R{F}_T\right)$: refers to the relative weight of the scope of pure technical activities, the environmental and socioeconomic content of the project, and the regulatory and legislative framework of the project;

(b)

Schedule risk factor $\left(R{F}_S\right)$: refers to the relative weight of the reclamation time complexity and planning, the critical path sensitivity, various misalignments in project activities’ escalation, and the definition of milestones;

(c)

Cost risk factor $\left(R{F}_C\right)$: refers to the relative weight of estimations for the capital expenditures and operating expenses (CAPEX/OPEX), including services of management, field logistics, funding, insurance, engineering, procurement of equipment and materials, erection and construction, permits, and environmental and social management activities;

(d)

Quality risk factor $\left(R{F}_Q\right)$: refers to the relative weight of the potential quality effects due to changes in the scope, workload, managerial misalignments, cost, technical factors, and other failures that may occur during the project.

The relative weight of each risk factor, $W_T$_, $W_S$, $W_C$, and $W_Q$, was calculated using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), a groupware decision-making technique broadly applied in industrial projects, engineering, manufacturing, logistics, business financing and marketing, scientific research, technology management, etc. [88,91]. In the present research, the experts used their experience and knowledge to perform pairwise comparisons according to the 1–9 evaluation scale recommended by [93] shown in

Table 3. The scale of pairwise comparison values ([93]).

1	Equal importance
3	Moderate importance
5	Strong or essential importance
7	Very strong importance
9	Extreme importance
2, 4, 6, 8	Values for inverse comparison

as a first step in providing numerical values for the relative weights of the identified RFs. Thus, the reciprocal matrix consisted of the weight of each risk factor (

Table 4. Reciprocal matrix of the weighted risk factors (WRFs).

Risk Factors	RFi	T	S	C	Q
Technical Performance	T	1	1/4	1/4	3
Schedule	S	4	1	1/2	3
Cost	C	4	2	1	5
Quality	Q	1/3	1/3	1/5	1

), while

Table 5. Normalized reciprocal matrix and priority vector.

Risk Factors	RFi	T	S	C	Q	Σ(RFi)	Priority Vector—(Wi)
Technical Performance	T	0.11	0.07	0.13	0.25	0.56	WT = 0.139
Schedule	S	0.43	0.28	0.26	0.25	1.21	Ws = 0.304
Cost	C	0.43	0.56	0.51	0.42	1.92	WC = 0.479
Quality	Q	0.04	0.09	0.10	0.08	0.31	WQ = 0.079
Consistency Control: λmax = 4.211; CI = 0.70; CI/RI = 0.078 < 0.10

depicts the normalized view of the reciprocal matrix formulated. The last column of Table 5 shows the priority vector of the calculated relative weight of each risk factor RFi (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) with a potential effect on the reclamation project: $W_T=0.139$, $W_S=0.304$, $W_C=0.479$ and $W_Q=0.79$, where (Equation (5)):

$$\sum W_i=W_T+W_S+W_C+W_Q=1.00 and 0<W_T,W_S,W_C,W_Q<1$$

(5)

Furthermore, consistency control was performed to check the mathematical validation in AHP computational results, as shown in the last line of Table 5.

4.4.2. Likelihood and Impact Severity Matrix (LIM)

Table 6. Likelihood of risk factors *.

Likelihood Level	Likelihood Range	Point Values *
Remote	P < 0.2	0.10
Unlikely	0.2 ≤ P < 0.4	0.30
Likely	0.4 ≤ P < 0.6	0.50
Very Likely	0.6 ≤ P < 0.8	0.70
Near Certainty	0.8 < P	0.90

(*) PMBOK (2013).

reflects the risk likelihood (or probability) analysis, where experts’ perception and common understanding of the categorization, intervals, and point values of the likelihood of each risk are described. Similarly,

Table 7. a. Risk factor impact analysis: technical performance and schedule; b. risk factor impact analysis: cost and quality.

a. Risk Factor Impact Analysis: Technical Performance and Schedule
Impact Level	Point Values (1)	Technical Performance Impact Factor	Schedule Impact Factor
Very Low (VL)	0.05	Insignificant change	Insignificant
Low (LO)	0.10	Controllable change	<5% of the TS (2)
Medium (ME)	0.20	Significant change	5–10% of the TS
High (HI)	0.40	Non-Acceptable change	10–20% of the TS
Very High (VH)	0.80	Project cancelling	>20% of the TS
b. Risk Factor Impact Analysis: Cost and Quality.
Impact Level	Point Values (1)	Cost Impact Factor	Quality Impact Factor
Very Low (VL)	0.05	Insignificant	Insignificant
Low (LO)	0.10	<5% of the budget	Controllable defects
Medium (ME)	0.20	5–10% of the budget	Owner’s approval required
High (HI)	0.40	10–20% of the budget	Non-acceptable defects
Very High (VH)	0.80	20% of the budget <	Project cancelling

⁽¹⁾ PMBOK (2013); ⁽²⁾ TS: time schedule.

shows the risk impact analysis for each RF, including technical performance, schedule, cost, and quality, as well as the point values corresponding to each impact category. Finally,

Table 8. Risk exposure matrix ⁽¹⁾.

Likelihood (L)	Impact (I)
	VL	LO	ME	HI	VH
Near Certainty	0.05	0.09	0.18	0.36	0.72
Very Likely	0.04	0.07	0.14	0.28	0.56
Likely	0.03	0.05	0.10	0.20	0.40
Unlikely	0.02	0.03	0.06	0.12	0.24
Remote	0.01	0.01	0.02	0.04	0.08

⁽¹⁾ PMBOK (2013); VL = Very Low; LO = Low; ME = Medium; HI = High; VH = Very High.

presents the likelihood and impact severity matrix, or risk exposure matrix. Each element was calculated as the product of the likelihood point values times the impact point values. The cells marked with green represent the low-risk exposure areas, and the yellow ones are the medium-risk exposure areas, while the red ones are the high-risk exposure areas [55].

4.4.3. Composite Likelihood and Impact Factors (${CLF}_j$ and ${CLF}_j$)

Table 9. Composite Likelihood Factors, $CL{F}_j$.

	$CL{F}_T$: Technical Performance								$CL{F}_S$: Schedule
Risk-ID	Ex1	Ex2	Ex3	Ex4	Ex5	$L_{Tj}$	$CL{F}_T$	Ex1	Ex2	Ex3	Ex4	Ex5	$L_{Sj}$	$CL{F}_S$
R-001	0.70	0.70	0.30	0.70	0.70	0.62	0.70	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.10	0.26	0.30
R-002	0.30	0.50	0.30	0.50	0.50	0.42	0.50	0.10	0.10	0.30	0.10	0.10	0.14	0.10
R-003	0.70	0.90	0.90	0.90	0.70	0.82	0.90	0.30	0.50	0.30	0.50	0.30	0.38	0.30
R-004	0.10	0.10	0.30	0.10	0.10	0.14	0.10	0.30	0.30	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.18	0.10
R-005	0.30	0.30	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.18	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10
R-006	0.70	0.50	0.50	0.30	0.30	0.46	0.50	0.30	0.10	0.30	0.50	0.30	0.30	0.40
R-007	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.70	0.10	0.22	0.30	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10
R-008	0.50	0.30	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.46	0.50	0.30	0.50	0.50	0.70	0.70	0.54	0.50
R-009	0.30	0.50	0.50	0.90	0.70	0.58	0.50	0.10	0.10	0.30	0.30	0.10	0.18	0.10
R-010	0.90	0.30	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.54	0.50	0.10	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.70	0.46	0.50
R-011	0.70	0.70	0.70	0.50	0.70	0.66	0.70	0.30	0.50	0.50	0.30	0.30	0.38	0.30
R-012	0.30	0.30	0.50	0.50	0.10	0.34	0.30	0.10	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.10	0.10	0.10
R-013	0.50	0.30	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.22	0.30	0.10	0.30	010	0.50	0.10	0.22	0.30
R-014	0.90	0.90	0.70	0.90	0.70	0.82	0.90	0.70	0.90	0.50	0.70	050	0.66	0.70
R-015	0.50	0.30	030	0.30	0.50	0.38	0.30	0.30	0.50	0.30	0.10	0.10	0.26	0.30
R-016	0.70	0.70	0.50	0.70	0.70	0.66	0.70	0.10	0.50	0.50	0.70	0.90	0.54	0.50
R-017	0.50	0.10	0.30	0.70	0.10	0.34	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.50	0.30	0.30	0.34	0.30
R-018	0.30	0.10	0.30	0.10	0.50	0.26	0.30	0.10	0.30	0.50	0.10	0.10	0.22	0.30
R-019	0.70	0.90	0.90	0.90	0.30	0.74	0.70	0.30	0.30	0.50	0.30	0.50	0.38	0.30
R-020	0.30	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.14	0.10	0.10	0.30	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.14	0.10
	$CL{F}_C$: Cost							$CL{F}_Q$: Quality
Risk-ID	Ex1	Ex2	Ex3	Ex4	Ex5	$L_{Cj}$	$CL{F}_C$	Ex1	Ex2	Ex3	Ex4	Ex5	$L_{Qj}$	$CL{F}_Q$	$CL{F}_j$
R-001	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.30	0.46	0.50	0.10	0.30	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.14	0.10	0.44
R-002	0.10	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.10	0.22	0.30	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.30	0.10	0.14	0.10	0.25
R-003	0.50	0.50	0.70	0.70	0.70	0.62	0.70	0.50	0.50	0.30	0.70	0.10	0.42	0.50	0.59
R-004	0.30	0.10	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.26	0.30	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.30	0.14	0.10	0.20
R-005	0.30	0.10	0.30	0.10	0.50	0.26	0.30	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.20
R-006	0.50	0.30	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.46	0.50	0.30	0.10	0.30	0.10	0.30	0.22	0.30	0.45
R-007	0.30	0.50	0.50	0.30	0.30	0.38	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.50	0.30	0.34	0.30	0.24
R-008	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.30	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.22	0.30	0.48
R-009	0.10	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.30	0.38	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.10	0.50	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.27
R-010	0.30	0.70	0.50	0.70	0.30	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.30	0.50	0.30	0.50	0.42	0.50	0.50
R-011	0.30	0.30	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.42	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.30	0.50	0.46	0.50	0.47
R-012	0.10	0.10	0.30	0.10	0.30	0.18	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.13
R-013	0.10	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.26	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.10	0.30	0.26	0.30	0.30
R-014	0.50	0.70	0.50	0.50	0.30	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.50	0.70	0.70	0.50	0.58	0.50	0.62
R-015	0.50	0.50	0.30	0.30	0.70	0.46	0.50	0.10	0.10	0.30	0.10	0.10	0.14	0.10	0.38
R-016	0.30	0.10	0.50	0.10	0.30	0.26	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.50	0.34	0.30	0.42
R-017	0.30	0.10	0.10	0.30	0.10	0.18	0.10	0.10	0.30	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.14	0.10	0.19
R-018	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.30	0.30	0.18	0.10	0.10	0.30	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.14	0.10	0.19
R-019	0.10	0.50	0.30	0.50	0.50	0.38	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.18	0.10	0.34
R-020	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.20	0.30	0.12

presents the calculation of the Composite Likelihood Factor of each risk, $CL{F}_j$ $\left(1\le j\le 20\right)$. First, the likelihood of every single risk corresponding to the technical performance risk factor, $L_{Tj}$, was calculated as the average value of experts’ estimations for all risks identified. Second, the likelihood of every single risk corresponding to the schedule risk factor, $L_{Sj}$, was calculated as the average value of experts’ estimations. The likelihood of cost risk factors, $L_{Cj}$ and the quality risk factor, $L_{Qj}$, were calculated in the same manner. Afterwards, the point values of $L_{Tj}$, $L_{Sj}$, $L_{Cj}$, and $L_{Qj}$, were defined as $CL{F}_{Tj}$, $CL{F}_{Sj}$, $CL{F}_{Cj}$, and $CL{F}_{Qj}$, respectively. Finally, the overall $CL{F}_j$ of the risk $j$ (Equation (6)) was produced using the formula described in the methodology:

$$CL{F}_j=W_T\times CL{F}_{Tj}+W_S\times CL{F}_{Sj}+W_C\times CL{F}_{Cj}+W_Q\times CL{F}_{Qj};\forall j:1\le j\le 20$$

(6)

Following the same computational practice, the Composite Impact Factor of each risk, $CI{F}_j$, was produced, as shown in

Table 10. Composite Impact Factors (CIFj).

	$CI{F}_T$: Technical Performance							$CL{F}_S$: Schedule
Risk-ID	Ex1	Ex2	Ex3	Ex4	Ex5	$I_{Tj}$	$CI{F}_T$	Ex1	Ex2	Ex3	Ex4	Ex5	$I_{Sj}$	$CI{F}_S$
R-001	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.40	0.20	0.40	0.40	0.20	0.32	0.40
R-002	0.20	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.12	0.10	0.20	0.20	0.40	0.20	0.10	0.22	0.20
R-003	0.20	0.20	0.40	0.40	0.80	0.40	0.40	0.80	0.80	0.80	0.40	0.80	0.72	0.80
R-004	0.05	0.10	0.10	0.05	0.10	0.08	0.10	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20
R-005	0.10	0.10	0.20	0.10	0.10	0.12	0.10	0.20	0.20	0.10	0.05	0.20	0.15	0.20
R-006	0.40	0.20	0.40	0.20	0.80	0.40	0.40	0.20	0.40	0.40	0.80	0.40	0.44	0.40
R-007	0.40	0.20	0.10	0.20	0.20	0.22	0.20	0.05	0.10	0.10	0.05	0.05	0.07	0.10
R-008	0.40	0.20	0.10	0.20	0.20	0.22	0.20	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.20	0.36	0.40
R-009	0.20	0.10	0.10	0.05	0.20	0.13	0.10	0.20	0.20	0.05	0.10	0.05	0.12	0.10
R-010	0.40	0.20	0.20	0.10	0.10	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.40	0.40	0.20	0.10	0.26	0.20
R-011	0.10	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.40	0.22	0.20	0.20	0.40	0.20	0.40	0.20	0.28	0.20
R-012	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.05	0.05	0.10	0.20	0.10	0.10
R-013	0.20	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.12	0.10	0.10	0.05	0.10	0.05	0.10	0.08	0.10
R-014	0.40	0.20	0.40	0.40	0.20	0.32	0.40	0.40	0.80	0.40	0.80	0.80	0.64	0.80
R-015	0.20	0.20	0.10	0.20	0.10	0.16	0.20	0.40	0.40	0.20	0.80	0.20	0.40	0.40
R-016	0.20	0.20	0.10	0.10	0.20	0.16	0.20	0.10	0.20	0.10	0.05	0.10	0.11	0.10
R-017	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.10	0.20	0.18	0.20	0.10	0.05	0.05	0.20	0.40	0.16	0.20
R-018	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.10	0.18	0.20	0.10	0.10	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.16	0.20
R-019	0.40	0.20	0.80	0.80	0.20	0.48	0.40	0.05	0.20	0.10	0.20	0.40	0.19	0.20
R-020	0.20	0.10	0.20	0.10	0.20	0.16	0.20	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.20	0.05	0.11	0.10
	$CI{F}_C$: Cost							$CI{F}_Q$: Quality
Risk-ID	Ex1	Ex2	Ex3	Ex4	Ex5	$I_{Cj}$	$CI{F}_C$	Ex1	Ex2	Ex3	Ex4	Ex5	$I_{Qj}$	$CI{F}_Q$	CIFj
R-001	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.20	0.36	0.40	0.10	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.10	0.07	0.10	0.33
R-002	0.10	0.20	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.12	0.10	0.10	0.05	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.09	0.10	0.13
R-003	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.20	0.05	0.10	0.05	0.05	0.09	0.10	0.50
R-004	0.10	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.18	0.20	0.10	0.10	0.05	0.10	0.10	0.09	0.10	0.18
R-005	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.08	0.10	0.11
R-006	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.80	0.40	0.48	0.40	0.20	0.20	0.40	0.20	0.20	0.24	0.20	0.38
R-007	0.20	0.10	0.10	0.20	0.20	0.16	0.20	0.40	0.20	0.20	0.10	0.10	0.20	0.20	0.17
R-008	0.40	0.40	0.20	0.40	0.40	0.36	0.40	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.10	0.20	0.18	0.20	0.36
R-009	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.20	0.05	0.11	0.10	0.24
R-010	0.40	0.10	0.20	0.10	0.10	0.18	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.10	0.40	0.22	0.20	0.20
R-011	0.40	0.40	0.20	0.40	0.40	0.36	0.40	0.20	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.20	0.32	0.40	0.31
R-012	0.10	0.10	0.05	0.10	0.10	0.09	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.05	0.20	0.10	0.11	0.10	0.10
R-013	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.05	0.10	0.09	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.20	0.10	0.12	0.10	0.10
R-014	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.51
R-015	0.40	0.80	0.80	0.40	0.40	0.56	0.40	0.10	0.10	0.20	0.10	0.10	0.12	0.10	0.35
R-016	0.40	0.80	0.40	0.80	0.40	0.56	0.40	0.10	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.10	0.16	0.20	0.27
R-017	0.20	0.40	0.20	0.10	0.40	0.26	0.20	0.20	0.40	0.40	0.20	0.20	0.28	0.20	0.20
R-018	0.10	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.40	0.34	0.40	0.20	0.40	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.24	0.20	0.30
R-019	0.80	0.80	0.80	0.80	0.80	0.80	0.80	0.40	0.40	0.80	0.80	0.80	0.64	0.80	0.56
R-020	0.10	0.05	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.09	0.10	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.10	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.12

, by applying Equation (7):

$$CI{F}_j=W_T\times CI{F}_{Tj}+W_S\times CI{F}_{Sj}+W_C\times CI{F}_{Cj}+W_Q\times CI{F}_{Qj};\forall j:1\le j\le 20$$

(7)

The preference for the likelihood and impact of each expert for each risk is presented in the columns Ex1, Ex2, Ex3, Ex4, and Ex5 in Table 9 and Table 10. The values of $CL{F}_j$ and $CI{F}_j$ represent the average value of experts’ rankings for each risk factor, as shown. The primary assumption in constructing these tables was that the risk sources are independent. Thus, Equations (6) and (7) calculated the combined expression of the risk factors as a single, representative value for the risk likelihood and impact, respectively [61]. Afterwards, based on the severity matrix (Table 8), the point values of CLF_j and CIF_j were defined and used in the calculation of risk exposure $CL{F}_{j}CI{F}_{j}R{E}_j$ for each risk of the mine’s reclamation strategic planning project. The point values for the likelihood were obtained by rounding the average values of experts’ estimations to the nearest-in-order point value, lower or higher, which is defined in Table 8. For example, the average likelihood values 0.18 and 0.41 were rounded to 0.10 and 0.50, respectively. Similarly, for the definition of impact point values, e.g., the impact values 0.24 and 0.61 (expert ranking average) were rounded to 0.20 and 0.80, respectively.

4.4.4. Risk Exposure and Response Planning

The risk exposure $\left(RE\right)$ was assumed using Equation (4). The $R{E}_j$ values are presented in

Table 11. Risk exposure (RE_j).

Risk-ID	$\mathit{C}\mathit{L}{\mathit{F}}_{\mathit{j}}$	$\mathit{C}\mathit{I}{\mathit{F}}_{\mathit{j}}$	Risk Exposure $\left(\mathit{R}\mathit{E}\right)$	$\left(\mathit{R}\mathit{E}\right)$ Classification *
R-001	0.44	0.33	0.15	Moderate
R-002	0.25	0.13	0.03	Low
R-003	0.59	0.50	0.29	High
R-004	0.20	0.18	0.03	Low
R-005	0.20	0.11	0.02	Low
R-006	0.45	0.38	0.17	Moderate
R-007	0.24	0.17	0.04	Low
R-008	0.48	0.36	0.17	Moderate
R-009	0.27	0.24	0.07	Moderate
R-010	0.50	0.20	0.10	Moderate
R-011	0.47	0.31	0.15	Moderate
R-012	0.13	0.10	0.01	Low
R-013	0.30	0.10	0.03	Low
R-014	0.62	0.51	0.31	High
R-015	0.38	0.35	0.13	Moderate
R-016	0.42	0.27	0.11	Moderate
R-017	0.19	0.20	0.04	Low
R-018	0.19	0.30	0.06	Moderate
R-019	0.34	0.56	0.19	High
R-020	0.12	0.12	0.01	Low

(*) Based on the bidimensional structure of the risk exposure matrix.

and classified as low, moderate, or high based on Table 8. The response planning for each risk is shown in

Table 12. Risk response planning.

Risk-ID	$\mathit{R}\mathit{E}$	Actions of Response Planning
R-001	Moderate	In a deep analysis of the strategic concept; cooperation with systems engineering and business process modelling experts.
R-002	Low	Organization of knowledge/technology transfer (KTT) training courses; literature review(s); investigation in technical libraries/databases; external consultation and lessons learned.
R-003	High	Project risk analysis; preventive actions and recovery management plan; mitigation measures and realignment of mechanisms of reclamation activities for organizational purposes.
R-004	Low	Support of experienced and specialized legal experts; review of the legislation requirements and provisions; lessons learned from frameworks established for similar projects in the past;
R-005	Low	Partnership with experts specialized in projects of sustainability financing and recycling economics.
R-006	Moderate	Performance of strategic concept with a definition of feasible options (alternative strategies) for the mine’s transition to sustainability; experts’ judgement and validation is required.
R-007	Low	Reformulation of company’s policies to align with sustainability and circular economy goals.
R-008	Moderate	Systematic cost estimates based on empirical evidence, cost databases, and detailed cost analysis of services and materials; elaboration of an effective contingency plan.
R-009	Moderate	Performance of an effective stakeholder engagement plan based on the international standards of recognized organizations and funding corporations (e.g., EBRD, World Bank).
R-010	Moderate	Detailed analysis of the scope of work for the field data collection, laboratory investigations and reporting; recovery plan in cases of data collection omissions or gaps due to low validity of data.
R-011	Moderate	Performance of a detailed plan for the data collection, engineering specifications/solutions and geoenvironmental factor evaluation; recovery plan in case of low-performance analyses.
R-012	Low	Organizational resetting and re-engineering of mining operation functionality, insofar as required
R-013	Low	Cooperation with environmental/social consultants with extensive experience in similar projects.
R-014	High	Intensive supervision of site works; fieldwork risk management and controlling plan (for the low-quality, technically inadequate, or inappropriate field activities).
R-015	Moderate	Reclamation scope definition based on mine’s situational analysis, methods suggested in the literature and empirical evidence; systematic scope reviews prior to the decision making is required.
R-016	Moderate	Land use changing model validation by a multidisciplinary team of experts and society representatives; consideration of regional/national development plans is suggested.
R-017	Low	Close collaborations with stakeholders and society representatives: key informants, focus groups, vulnerable communities, regional agencies, municipalities, Non-Governmental Organizations.
R-018	Moderate	The legal aspects of the strategic plan need to be validated by a legal expert; due diligence framework to examine/analyze the regulatory provisions for the mine’s transition to a circular economy.
R-019	High	Elaboration of a bankability study; funding flow monitoring; risk management plan; a plan for the management of potential project funding/financing problems is also required.
R-020	Low	Support from risk and hazardousness analysis/research experts; mine’s physical environment; microclimate data and records of hazardous events for early planning.

. The main actions and measures refer to various types of abatement plans, training activities, and any other organizational settings, synergies, and managerial provisions, which were adequate to prevent effectively managing the identified risks.

The measures related to low RE values $\left(0.01<R{E}_j\le 0.04\right)$ deal with actions of low cost and care, such as knowledge transfer, consulting, partnerships, estimations of natural hazards, and realignment of mining company policies to the perspective of sustainability and circular economy.

The measures suggested for moderate RE values $\left(0.04<R{E}_j\le 0.14\right)$ are actions requiring more intensive care and effort, such as in-deep investigation and prescription of the alternative mine reclamation strategies, detailing the situational analysis scope, the quality of the engineering solutions examined for the land use and landscape reformulation, precise cost estimations, and efficient management of legal and regulatory issues, especially the permit and licensing aspects.

Finally, the measures suggested for the high RE values $\left(0.14<R{E}_j\right)$ are highly intensive, resource-consuming, and costly actions, such as (a) furthering the organizational structure of the reclamation project management system or (b) performing a substantial bankability study to convince the lenders and funding organizations to fund the reclamation project. In this context, the transition effort, the intensive supervision, and follow up of the in situ data collection and engineering studies, the recovery of potential failures or gaps which may occur, along with the establishment of emerging mechanisms, enable efficient recovery and mitigation of any risk impact occurring during the preparation of a robust and feasible reclamation project execution plan.

5. Discussion

5.1. Methodology Review

The suggested methodology is based on two (2) conceptual purposes: one functional, where the performance of a mine reclamation project is understood as a set of business processes, and one risk-based aiming to assess the risks that may affect the strategic reclamation planning, which necessitates foreseeing managerial actions. Both purposes, however, present views which are worth discussing.

First, IDEF0 seems to be a practical, value-adding, and low-cost method of representing the functional profile of reclamation projects. IDEF0’s design and visualization capabilities and syntax rules better suit the reclamation planning processes and project execution philosophy. Another advantage is that in the analysis of ICOM entities, the main aspects of the transition to sustainability can be represented in the overall IDEF0 ontology, enabling the project planners to better understand the project functionality, the activities breakdown, the resources required, and the project constraints and limitations as well. In addition, IDEF0 requires a short development time and can be easily validated by the experts team. On the other hand, IDEF0 seems to be relatively static and is better suited to reflecting the strategic planning for a mine closure, as it is based on the current functional scheme and the prediction of this scheme’s reformulation. Another drawback is that the IDEF0 method is descriptive with no content-related quantification extensions or possibilities. In this paper, however, we attempted to correlate the IDEF0 model, even indirectly, with the reclamation planning risks by combining the outlined process model with the qualitative and quantitative analysis of the reclamation project risks. The results of the case study show the applicability of the methodology.

Second, the WRF analysis provided a helpful background for exploiting and quantifying the experts’ collective judgment, which was proven valuable in the AHP computations for the RFs’ relative weights (W_T, W_S, W_C, W_Q). It was agreed that the number of experts should be greater. However, this was a limitation of the research in terms of resources and time, which will be considered an issue which can be improved upon in future work. Moreover, the adoption of average values in the evaluations of the likelihood and impact enabled the balancing of experts’ rankings and, therefore, the rationalization and mathematical objectification of data using risk analysis Equations (2)–(4). On the other hand, although the risk analysis was mainly focused on the adverse developments that may occur during reclamation, the opportunities presented by the gradual exploitation of post-mining material (top soil, unexploited ore, exploitation residues, disposed materials, industrial water lakes, etc.) for an integrated model of a circular economy were considered in this research. However, this perspective might be a proposal for further investigation.

Third, the risk mitigation strategy was selected to reduce the overall risk exposure for the response planning. In this regard, the necessary preventive actions and provisions, which may be helpful for the mine managers, stakeholders, and other parties of society, and people living and working in the greater area of the closing mine, are described. Of course, further analysis on this topic, along with the necessary estimations of the mine’s transformation to sustainability and repurposing costs and the beneficial returns to society, the economy, and the environment, are required.

5.2. The Risk Analysis Results

The RE calculations show that the mine reclamation, aimed at promoting sustainable transformation, presents three categories of risks (research assumption: all risks are considered equivalent): 40% of the assessed risks present a low $RE$, 45% present a moderate RE, and 15% present a high $RE$, as shown in Figure 6. These results might be interpreted in three (3) different ways. The optimistic perspective claims that exposure to 85% of the reclamation planning risks is a low-to-moderate risk. The other is more conservative, claiming that 60% of the risks described above result from moderate-to-high exposure. The third is more formal and claims that the reclamation is, in principle, a moderate-risk project, where some risks require intensive follow up for early preventive and effective response planning, but some other risks can be more easily managed/controlled. Which approach will be adopted is an issue requiring substantial decision making before its communication to any interested entity. However, the attitude and socioeconomic situation of local communities, the expectations of stakeholders, the mining company policy, and the regulatory provisions have to be taken into consideration in the preparation and execution of the decision-making process. One option to overcome this problem is the performance of a multicriteria/multi-attribute decision-making method [94], adequately prepared and organized, to increase the reasonability and objectivity of risk analysis results. In this case, a more precise identification, breakdown, and analysis of all possible risks may be required [95,96].

5.3. Techno-Economic Viewpoint

Risk management is a tool for enhancing every project’s performance, quality, timeliness, and cost control. The proactive/preventive actions advised in the risk response planning and the subsequent mitigation and recovery measures applied when a failure or a hazard appears present interesting techno-economic viewpoints. This is important insofar as the successful execution of long-term reclamation activities aimed at promoting sustainability requires a well-performing risk management framework that ensures a cost-effective and low-risk project environment. In practice, the overall cost of risk management performance, $C_{RMP}$, is composed of the costs of project risk management regarding system functionality (indirect costs, i.e., personnel fees, consultation, auditing, insurance expenses, documentation, logistics, etc.), $C_{RMF}$, plus the costs of the risk failure recovery (direct costs, i.e., re-scoping effects, supplementary data collection, engineering work repetition(s), cost estimation revisions, rescheduling, variation costs, etc.), and $C_{RFR}$. Thus, when the reclamation planning project is in progress, the optimum value of the total cost of risk management performance is obtained when $C_{RMP}$ is minimized, based on [31,97], to $C_{MIN }$(Equation (8)):

$$C_{RMP}=C_{RMF}+C_{RFR}=C_{MIN}$$

(8)

Figure 7 shows the trade-off curves of parameters $C_{RMF}$ and C_RFR and the optimum cost-balancing area of $C_{RMP}$, which considers the recommendations of mining managers and experts in an effort to establish a well-performing risk management system which enables a low-risk reclamation planning framework. The optimum area depends on the complexity and efficiency of the established risk management system and the risk recovery costs that the mining organization is willing to pay for a successful and low-risk reclamation planning project.

6. Conclusions and Further Research

This research demonstrates the conceptual and functional content of the strategic planning applied to surface mine reclamation projects, with an overall analysis of the main risks which may affect this planning using the IDEF0 methodology. The content of the methodology has been adapted for resolving and controlling the critical geoenvironmental and socioeconomic problems related to the reclamation of post-mining sites and, in general, the repurposing of these sites as sustainability and circular economy post-mining projects. The prototype view of the methodology is the combination of the IDEF0 process design technique with the WRF analysis supported by the AHP for the definition of the critical RFs. This combination involves aspects of project process management and project risk management from the knowledge domains. It enables: (a) exploitation of experts’ multidisciplinary knowledge and extensive experience to produce an easy-to-develop, low-cost adequate reclamation planning strategy defined in a participatory context, (b) a substantial qualitative and quantitative analysis of the main reclamation planning risks, and (c) the definition and breakdown of the reclamation activities that may constitute the backbone for the preparation of a comprehensive and well-documented reclamation project execution plan. The used tools and methods allow for the methodology to be customized for the project-specific geoenvironmental and socioeconomic conditions. In parallel, the critical factors of a mine transition to sustainability and the change in existing land uses were considered in the IDEF0 business process modelling and design and the corresponding risk analysis. Finally, the functional results of IDEF0 task ontology (processes, activities, and ICOM data) constitute a valuable background for the low-risk planning, scheduling, organization, and execution of a reclamation project.

Nevertheless, the methodology presents perspectives for improvement and further research. For example, the resulting geoenvironmental and socioeconomic benefits can be assessed in order to identify to what extent the analysis of the risks and opportunities of a reclamation project contributes to the achievement of circular economy targets. Thus, the outcome and business profile of the reclamation project can be reasonably and more objectively approached as the CAPEX/OPEX estimates can be performed on a more objective and realistic basis, demonstrating to lenders the feasibility and the social, environmental, and economic benefits and returns the project entails when negotiations for the project bankability are taking place. RFs can also be further developed, including aspects such as health (e.g., epidemic effects as the COVID-19 ones), safety, policy, and crises with a worldwide impact, enabling a more realistic estimation of project risks and opportunities. Finally, the analysis of fundamental financial parameters of the reclamation project (interest rate of return—IRR, net present value—NPV, etc.) can also be investigated, along with appropriate sensitivity analyses.