1118 on land use after mining, explicitly incorporating social variables (such as local needs, migration trends, and employment potential) alongside environmental and economic criteria. Similarly, Sina Amirshenava et al. (2022) proposes strategic planning frameworks that allow for the comparative evaluation of alternative land uses based on weighted criteria. In this regard, Pershke and Elliott (2019) recognize that strategic land use planning is necessary to reduce residual liability and uncertainty; however, they do not analyze how these strategies are based on binding legal frameworks or territorial governance regimes. Several studies emphasize that post-mining landscapes are constrained by persistent physical and environmental limitations. Marwan et al. (2023) introduce multiple risk assessment frameworks to evaluate risks such as subsidence, flooding, and contamination, highlighting that not all land use options are viable or safe. Ecological research similarly underscores the long-term dynamics of restored landscapes and the limits of certain forms of reuse (Hendrychová, 2020; Kantor, 2021). These approaches represent a clear advance over previous, purely technical models, as they recognize that post-transaction outcomes are not value-neutral and require explicit prioritization. However, in the works, decision-making is presented as a technical or management problem, rather than a legal or institutional one; therefore, the models assume the existence of a legitimate decision-maker, as well as the existence of stable institutional agreements and enforceable outcomes, without questioning how these conditions are produced or guaranteed. In this sense, there is a preliminary step that is not considered. Therefore, although the literature has become increasingly sophisticated in optimizing post-mining land use options, it still fails to address who has the authority to decide how conflicts between competing visions of land use are resolved and how the selected outcomes are implemented or reviewed over time. This reveals an implicit assumption that planning tools can replace governance arrangements, a limitation that is more visible in post-mining territories that have social and political controversies. 2.3 Closure, responsibility, and long-term debt Another set of reviewed works focuses on regulatory developments in mine closure, particularly about environmental liability, financial assurance, and release. Tiemann (2022) analyzes closure and rehabilitation policies as pathways to release, emphasizing growing regulatory concern about residual risk and so-called “long-term debt.” Kuzyk (2025) similarly documents the ongoing evolution of closure practices toward more proactive approaches that include early planning and adaptive management. Hood et al. (2025) further highlight the importance of incorporating stakeholder participation from the outset, noting that such early involvement improves the legitimacy and durability of post-mining land use decisions. Similarly, ecological studies show that environments restored after operations require ongoing, long-term management, challenging the idea of closure as an endpoint (Melichar, 2022; Hendrychová, 2020). While this is relevant, it should be noted that in our country, the regulatory approach continues to focus on environmental risk mitigation and financial responsibility, paying little attention to territorial consequences. As a result, closure policies tend to limit acceptable end states to biophysical and geochemical aspects, leaving issues such as land tenure, future governance, and the socioeconomic integration of postmining territories unaddressed. This leads to responsibility being conceptualized in a restrictive manner as liability for damages, rather than as the ongoing management of transformed territories. 2.4 Social dimensions, participation, and human rights Demajorovic (2022) points out that mine closure must address social impacts and introduce the concept of “social license to close,” referring to community participation, transparency, and trust. Measham et al. (2024) also criticize the predominance of technical perspectives, raising the need for research that brings to the fore the social, cultural, and institutional dimensions of post-mining transitions. In this regard, studies focused on indigenous territories reveal structural limitations in existing governance agreements. For example, Boulot and Collins (2024) point out that even in jurisdictions with relatively advanced regulatory frameworks, closure and rehabilitation processes on indigenous lands often fail to ensure
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2