196 and integrated evaluation matrices (Arratia-Solar et al., 2022; Sina Amirshenava and Osanloo, 2022; Pershke and Elliott, 2019). Arratia-Solar et al. (2022) offer one of the most comprehensive proposals for systematizing decisions 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 longterm 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,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2