Introduction

After mining activities cease, the areas are considerably altered in comparison with their original state which, in many cases, is considered degradation or at least deformation of the environment. However, a newly created form may constitute a landscape diversion with a positive, intriguing or even inspiring impact on our senses (Baczyńska et al. 2017). In this case, the above-mentioned negative associations cannot be applied. It can also be noted that in some cases there is a natural self-dealing effect with the resulting anthropogenic form, giving very good and satisfactory result. In other cases, human interference seems to be helpful or simply necessary; still, this activity should be applied in accordance with the previously accepted principles. It seems that these principles should take three basic aspects into consideration. One of those are the existing natural conditions or terrain configuration, state of vegetation, presence of water bodies or watercourses and, in this context, the form and shape of the existing anthropogenic land transformation (e.g. excavation). The second aspect should be related to the existing objective conditions of the area, influencing the choice and application of the appropriate way of its development in the future. The third aspect means expectations and possible suggestions of local authorities and population who have their own adequately justified preferences and priorities concerning the future of this place.

Ways and forms of post-mining areas development determine appropriate recommendations which are founded on the proper, specialist terminology. However, there are numerous inaccuracies and ambiguities of some terms and incomparability of classifications offered by different authors in the literature on the subject. What is more, the fact is that many of those offers force one to use a solution which is not fully optimal, satisfactory to neither local authorities nor residents. Moreover, the existing classifications of the post-mining land reclamation are difficult to correlate with one another. The use of one of them does not always correspond to the other. In addition, within the existing general reclamation directions, the possibility of allocating the relevant function to the designated area and indicating the specific ways of its use is also limited. It is feared that sites with similar natural conditions, using different classifications, will be differently reclaimed and redeveloped. For instance, determining a way of reclamation as, e.g. industrial one does not provide complete information on the functions, the particular area will have after mining ceases. One does not know whether this will be a public utility structure, industrial plant or service or sports facility. Similarly, determining a way of reclamation as agricultural one can be perceived as broadly taken crop cultivation or animal breeding. A lack of precise determination of these functions causes problems related to reclamation task planning and cost estimation of such an undertaking. Further according to Lima et al. (2016) for any given surface mining, the decisions should, in principle, be translated into site specific objectives. An example here can be “Wilcza Góra” basalt mine located in Poland. This mine has very general ways of reclamation determined, and these are aquatic and forest. Objectives formulated in that way are unclear since these only mean that the excavation pit will be filled with water and there will be a forest area formed around. One does not know detailed functions, thus it is unable to plan reclamation works or even its costs. Knowing the detailed functions proposed by the mining entrepreneur, namely natural, recreational and educational ones under the name of “Geodiversity Park,” one is able to evaluate the range of reclamation tasks and their costs.

The article aims at recognizing and organizing the existing reality in this scope versus administrative and economic practices, opinions found in the literature on this subject and author’s own research. The review of the current methods of the discussed areas’ development, their appropriate compilation and in-depth analysis are offered, and consequently, these enable one to present a new, relatively developed and, simultaneously, possibly optimal and flexible offer of the classification.

The analysis of the terms/terminology of returning the utility or natural functions to post-mining areas

The analysis of the literature connected to the issues of returning the utility and natural functions to the areas after mining ceases shows application of many terms which may be used differently and often even improperly. The terms which occur the most often in the literature are as follows: restoration, reclamation and rehabilitation. Restoration means the process of the site condition replication after deposit exploitation. Restoration allows no land use flexibility and incurs the greatest cost (Sahu and Dash 2011; Dogan and Kahriman 2008; Bradshaw 1996; Sweigard 1992; Lima et al. 2016).

The term rehabilitation means the establishment of a stable and self-sustaining ecosystem, but not necessarily the one that existed before mining began (Dutta et al. 2005). Bradshaw (1996) uses that term as “the action of restoring a thing to a previous condition or status.” This appears rather similar to restoration, but there is little or no implication of perfection. Indeed, in common usage, something that is rehabilitated is not expected to be in as original or healthy a state as if it had been restored. According to the USA National Academy of Sciences, it means that the land is returned to a form and productivity in conformity with a prior land use plan including a stable ecological state that does not contribute substantially to environmental deterioration and is consistent with surrounding aesthetic values. European Union law doesn’t define the methods and directions of reclamation, as well as the principles of performing reclamation works. However, it defines the concept of rehabilitation as restore the land to a satisfactory state, with particular regard to soil quality, wild life, natural habitats, freshwater system, landscape and appropriate beneficial uses (Directives 2006/21/WE of the European Parliament and of the Council). Rehabilitation usually permits the greatest flexibility in future land use and incurs the least cost (Sahu and Dash 2011).

The term reclamation is mainly used in UK and in USA. In British terminology, reclamation is the process of gaining or recovering land, bringing it into a condition for cultivation or other use (Sweigard 1992). US National Academy of Sciences, however, treats this term as the site is hospitable to organisms that were originally present or others that approximate the original inhabitants. Reclamation infers that the pre- and post-disturbance land uses are nearly the same (Sahu and Dash 2011 after: Kuter 2013). However, this term may also be found in other publications discussing the issues of restoring the utility or natural values to post-mining areas (Dogan and Kahriman 2008; Cuff and Goudie 2009; Kaźmierczak et al. 2014; Sphiwe and Amponsah-Dacosta 2016; Lima et al. 2016).

All the aforementioned terms refer to the situation where returning natural or utility values to degraded areas takes place from the moment of cessation of a mining activity to the moment of possibility of using a fully equipped/developed area. However, in some countries, e.g. in Poland, there is a problem of terminology/definition of this phenomenon since legal regulations provide a clear division into two stages:

  • (reclamation) the stage of restoring or giving the usable values to degraded or devastated lands by appropriate land relief shaping, water regulations, soil restoration, slopes reinforcement and road construction or reconstruction,

  • (land development) the stage of agricultural, forestry or other use of reclaimed areas.

Here, it seems necessary to specify the terms concerning the restoring of altered post-mining areas’ utility. Therefore, first of all, one should define more precisely the terms referring to the all-embracing solutions (without division into stages) which are eventually related to a possibility of full utilization of a post-mining area. The first term that should be used here would be restoration that should mean the return to the original state of the altered land, the state before degradation. The second one that should occur in this case is rehabilitation understood as the return to the utility/natural state according to the original land development plan. However, the return to the utility/natural state should be in accordance with the aesthetic qualities of the surrounding areas. One should bear in mind that this term should allow flexibility of choosing the method of development.

However, if there are stages in the restoring process of the usable or natural values, we propose to define them as follows:

  • reclamation—understand as restoring or giving the usable values to degraded or devastated land by appropriate land modelling (ground works, slopes reinforcement), improvement of physical and chemical properties, water regulation, soils restoration and roads construction or reconstruction. This definition could also be used for preparing land for development.

  • land development—defined as target activities enabling one to use the reclaimed land, respectively, and in accordance with reclamation way and, consequently, land development method (e.g. utilities, buildings, appropriate infrastructure, e.g. sports and recreation).

However, one should notice that both these terms define the integrally and serially connected stages of land use since the method of future land development determines the way, scope and method of reclamation. Still, there is a freedom of attributing a function to the altered areas since it can be restoring functions land alteration or giving totally new ones. Therefore, there is a freedom of choice concerning the method of post-mining land development.

The literature also mentions the term revitalization. It is the term covering both stages: reclamation and land development, and it means the state restoration, giving the opportunity to perform the utility function of this area (Uberman and Ostręga 2003; Bielecka and Król-Korczak 2010; Juzyk et al. 2011; Pietrzyk-Sokólska 2012; Kuter 2013). The basic objective of revitalization is economic and social recovery (Kołodziej 2005), still an important aspect here is the fact that this process can take any form. (There is no obligation of restoring the altered land to its original functions.) What is more, revitalization should be all-embracing and involving a number of multi-connected, complementary and mutually reinforcing activities aiming at triggering a qualitative and positive change within a particular area.

Literature research concerning the possibilities of using post-mining areas and the offer of classification of reclamation ways

The most important aspect concerning restoring post-mining areas’ utility values is determining functions they should have after the mining activity ceases. Currently, there is a very wide range of possibilities of post-mining areas use. One can, for instance, use an open cast for waste disposal, as a recreational area or to render different services. The natural values of post-mining excavations are noticed, allowing to reconstitute the environmental condition but different from the original one (Kaźmierczak et al. 2014; Jawecki 2012, Hao et al. 2010; Pavloudakis et al. 2009; McHaina 2001). The occurring different possibilities of post-mining areas use have resulted in many classifications of land development (and the resulting reclamation ways) or rehabilitation ways. The classification based on standards of the American Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (2000) is one of them, specifying the post-mining land uses (Table 1).

Table 1 Methods of post-mining land uses according to the American Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (2000)
Full size table

Other land uses are mentioned in the USA Code of Federal Regulations (2011) which defines ten methods of land use (Table 2).

Table 2 Methods of post-mining land use according to the USA Code of Federal Regulations (2011)
Full size table

An innovative classification of determining ways of reclamation was offered by Kaźmierczak and Malewski (2001) and Kaźmierczak (2002). A distinguishing feature of this classification was the division of ways into general and specific ones which are joined together in many semantic combinations. This approach was supposed to eliminate ambiguities and differences in the reclamation’s terminology, e.g. sports and recreational is recreational and tourist way in other classification. The authors offered 5 general and 19 specific ways of reclamation (Table 3).

Table 3 Classification of reclamation ways according to Kaźmierczak and Malewski (2001) and Kaźmierczak (2002)
Full size table

On the basis of the existing classifications and the implemented post-industrial land reclamation and development projects, Uberman and Ostręga (2003) made a list of reclamation ways (Table 4). The authors, while maintaining the division into general and specific ways of reclamation, additionally distinguished cultural and recreational ways in comparison with the classification offered by Kaźmierczak and Malewski (2001) and Kaźmierczak (2002).

Table 4 General and specific ways of reclamation and development according to Uberman and Ostręga (2003)
Full size table

German RAG Immobilien—MGG company supporting the regional restructuring programmes within the area of Ruhr Coalfield and Saar River, has worked out the classification of post-mining areas with regard to their future use (Ostręga 2004). This classification includes the following developments:

  • agriculture,

  • forest,

  • housing,

  • business,

  • industry,

  • recreation,

  • mining usufruct,

  • industrial wastelands,

  • open space.

The year 2008 brought other classifications describing general and specific post-mining land uses (Dogan and Kahriman 2008; Soltanmohammadi et al. 2008; Narrei and Osanloo 2011; Bangian et al. 2012), while Dogan and Kahriman (2008) offered six general possibilities of using the lands with a specific description (Table 5), and Soltanmohammadi et al. (2008) as well as Narrei and Osanloo (2011) listed eight types of post-mining land use (Table 6). On the other hand, Bangian et al. (2012) showed alternative ways of using lands after mining distinguishing 5 general and 13 specific ways of their use.

Table 5 Classification of general and specific land use according to Dogan and Kahriman (2008)
Full size table
Table 6 Types of post-mining land use according to Soltanmohammadi et al. (2008) and Narrei and Osanloo (2011)
Full size table

In his publication, Kuter (2013) determined possible forms of general post-reclamation land uses without distinguishing specific post-mining land uses:

  • The original land use,

  • Afforestation, forestry,

  • Agriculture,

  • Nature conservation and wildlife,

  • Hydrology,

  • Recreation,

  • Site improving,

  • Special reserve,

  • Settlement or industry,

  • Solid waste or rubble storage area.

As the literature research on the classifications of ways of rehabilitation/reclamation/land development shows, post-mining areas may have different functions. However, these classifications are not always accurate and may cause certain inaccuracies as, for instance, in the classifications of Dogan and Kahriman (2008) and according to the USA Code of Federal Regulations (2011) which offer the same forms of land use twice (pastureland, agriculture) which leads to ambiguity if there is no specific description. On the other hand, in the classifications of Soltanmohammadi et al. (2008) and Narrei and Osanloo (2011) types of land use are overlapping, as in case of lakes and pools and intensive recreation. Both types are connected with water development of post-mining land. It should be pointed out that in some cases the classifications, only distinguishing general possibilities of post-mining land use, do not specify a precise function of the reclaimed area. For instance, when declaring a water way one does not know whether a particular area will function as a storage pond or as a swimming pool. Another example here can be the recreational way which in one case is relaxation in the greenery, in other case, reposing near water tanks. What is more, the problem here is also the divergence in terminology of ways which define the same objectives as, for instance, economic in one classification, and as commercial in the other.

Given the described difficulties in the terminology, there was an attempt of creating a classification including all the possible methods of land use. On the basis of the previously offered classifications and the literature study, the possible ways of post-mining land reclamation are listed in Table 7. Obviously, this classification could also be successfully used with determining the ways of rehabilitation, revitalization or land development. The offered classification maintains the division into general and specific ways with regard to the general ways’ insufficiency for a specific description of post-mining land’s future functions. The so far scattered methods of land use are grouped by the assumed form, e.g. water—sports, breeding, flood control reservoir; forest—management, protection, recreation; etc. Therefore, 6 general and 23 specific ways are offered. The innovativeness and practicality of the offered classification consist in its considerable flexibility in use resulting from the possibility of joining and combining general and specific ways.

Table 7 Offered classification of ways of reclamation
Full size table

Agricultural reclamation aims at enabling one to carry out works related to agricultural production, agricultural and food processing, breeding or taking advantage of allotment gardens. On the other hand, the forest way’s task is to increase forest resources and plantations and create places of rest for local communities (Fig. 1a). One of the specific functions is also developing protection forests.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Development of post-mining areas in the following ways a forest (external dumping ground of “Turów” Brown Coal Mine, Poland; b natural—anthropogenic rock exposures (Winspit, England); c economic—housing development (Poland); d cultural—limestone pit developed for educational purposes, “Limestone Heritage Park and Gardens” (Malta)

Full size image

The general water way of reclamation creates the following possibilities in post-mining excavations: water retention, water regulation, building bodies of water for recreational use or building potable water or flood control reservoirs. On the other hand, increasing, preserving or recreating natural resources or elements within a particular area is the objective of the natural way. This can be achieved by restoring of wildlife in the transformed site by industrial activity, preserving the interesting objects of in animated and animated nature as, such as anthropogenic rock exposure (Fig. 1b). What is more, this way also includes unconditioned vegetation encroachment through the so-called natural succession and land reclamation for green areas, the ones having aesthetical, recreational or health-promoting functions as: squares, parks, boulevards, promenades and even botanical gardens.

Building of residential, industrial, communal and service facilities as well as recreational and sports facilities is included in the economic way (Fig. 1c), and the reclamation objective in the cultural way is increasing aesthetical, artistic and scientific qualities (Fig. 1d). According to above, it is important to preserve and promote the artistic objects, related to the history of industry, in the developed area.

The essence of the offered classification is a possibility of joining the ways into semantic combinations in the following form: <general.specific>, <general.specific,specific> and, possibly, <general + general.specific + specific>. In this way, one obtains much more semantic combinations from number n gen to number n gen*n spec, and even n gen*n spec + n gen*n spec, simultaneously eliminating ambiguities of the previous classification resulting from equivocal character of a general way’s name (e.g. water as a water sports area, rearing pond, flood control reservoir). The following examples are given:

  • the post-mining area will be a rearing pond. The general way of reclamation will be agricultural and the specific one—breeding so it will be eventually described as: agricultural.breeding

  • the post-mining area will be a single-family housing development together with service facilities (e.g. sports fields, playgrounds). In this case, the general way of reclamation would be economic, and the specific ones would be housing and services. This will be described as follows: economic.housing, services

  • the post-mining excavation pit will be used as a swimming area, and there will be the adjacent developed green areas, natural succession areas and sports services facilities. The general ways will be: aquatic, natural and economic; and the specific ones will be: green areas, natural succession and services. This will be described as follows: aquatic.recreation, natural.green areas, natural succession, economic.services.

Summary

The proposals concerning methods and forms of land development after mining found in the literature on the subject are hardly applicable due to a lack of the unambiguous terminology of the issues of restoring this land’s utility and natural values. Adopting an optimal way of post-mining land development by choosing from many, not entirely correspondent classifications, is all the more problematic if one considers the fact that there is no direct correlation of the basic terms which constitute the basis for the mentioned classifications. After the in-depth analysis and discussion on the following terms: revitalization, restoration, rehabilitation, reclamation and land development, there was an attempt to standardize the terminology and organize the state of facts. On the basis of the literature offers, a new compiled classification was created and presented in which the basic terminology is unambiguous and leaves no space for doubts as to the interpretation. The so far scattered methods of land use were grouped by the assumed form, e.g.: water—sports, breeding, flood control reservoir; forest—management, protection, recreation; etc. The new classification offers the methods of reclamation and restoration of post-mining areas’ utility and natural values on the basis of 6 general and 23 specific ways taking into consideration all the possible ways of using these lands. The proposed classification, although having the form of a larger table, is a kind of compromise, formed on the basis of those existing in the literature. It contains many elements proposed previously, but it also allows greater flexibility of adaptation of the appropriate functions and the general and detailed directions of development. It was also presented a very convenient proposal including the connection the several models of land development. This will make possible to eliminate potential incompatibilities and the unjustified allocation of different functions to similar functions. This kind of approach will enable one to consider each place individually, avoiding stereotyped solutions which are often inapplicable to a specific site and unsatisfying in relation to social expectations. The proposed reclamation/rehabilitation plans systematics should be applied in the both general and detailed form. Only such precise clarification of the post-mining land function will allow the accurate estimation of the scope and cost of reclamation/rehabilitation.