See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258906983

Application of fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making to select and to rank

the post-mining land-use

Article in Environmental Earth Sciences · July 2014

DOI: 10.1007/s12665-013-2948-0

CITATIONS READS

37 396

4 authors:

Isa Masoumi Saeed Naraghi

Islamic Azad University Tehran Science and Research Branch Islamic Azad University Tehran Science and Research Branch
9 PUBLICATIONS 59 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 42 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Farshad Rashidinejad Shiba Masoumi

Islamic Azad University Tehran Science and Research Branch Islamic Azad University - Babol
26 PUBLICATIONS 348 CITATIONS 4 PUBLICATIONS 40 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sungun copper mine View project

Modelling of blast-Induced pre-conditioning of rocks View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Farshad Rashidinejad on 18 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Environ Earth Sci (2014) 72:221–231
DOI 10.1007/s12665-013-2948-0
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Application of fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making to select
and to rank the post-mining land-use
Isa Masoumi • Saeed Naraghi • Farshad Rashidi-nejad
Shiba Masoumi
Received: 6 October 2012 / Accepted: 11 November 2013 / Published online: 26 November 2013
 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
Abstract The selection of an optimal reclamation method is
one of the most important portions of the surface mining
design. There are many factors in this problem which seri-
ously influence decision-making. The fuzzy set theory was
applied due to the effect of uncertain parameters involved in
the decision-making process. Therefore, the fuzzy multi-
attribute decision-making method was proposed. The aim of
this study is to use the fuzzy technique for order preference by
similarity to ideal solution method for ranking the optimal
post-mining land-use and the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
method in order to determine the weights of each criterion.
This approach is applied to the surface coal mine by
employing 28 criteria which influence the decision-making
procedure. The TOPSIS and AHP methods have been the most
used methods of mining decision-making and demonstrated
their ability to make critical decisions. By evaluating the
alternatives and considering effective criteria with proposed
methods, agriculture is the optimal post-mining land-use.
Keywords Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process 
Fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity to
ideal solution  Limiting method  Mined land
reclamation  Post-mining land-use
I. Masoumi (&)  S. Naraghi
Department of Mining Engineering, Science and Research
Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: isa_masoumi@yahoo.com
F. Rashidi-nejad
School of Mining Engineering, University of New South Wales,
Sydney, Australia
S. Masoumi
Department of Industrial Management, Babol Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Mazandaran, Iran
•
Introduction
Our society and civilization now rely heavily on the mining
industry to operate and maintain comfort. However, mining
is a temporary use of the land that transforms fertile, cul-
tivated land into wasteland and generates a vast amount of
solid wastes, which deposit on the surface and occupy a
huge land area. Typically, a mine-degraded wasteland
comprises stripped areas (59 %), open-pit mines (20 %),
tailings’ dams (13 %), waste tips (5 %), and land affected
by mining subsidence (3 %) as described by Li (2006).
Therefore, to access the two aims, namely, using mines and
their production and reducing the impacts of mining
operations, the main concern is applying the suitable use
for post-mining land after the mine closure or during the
mining process.
On the other hand, the selection of land-use after the
mine closure is a difficult decision, which is further com-
plicated because of the variety of parameters. The param-
eters that must be taken into account to provide the local
community satisfaction with a viable development plan
(Pavloudakis et al. 2009).
There are many attributes in this problem which seri-
ously influence the judgments. There are also uncertain
parameters involved in the decision-making procedure. In
the earlier forms of the AHP and TOPSIS methods,
experts’ comparisons about the criteria, sub-criteria, and
alternatives are represented as exact numbers. However, in
many practical cases, the experts’ preferences are uncertain
and they are reluctant or unable to make numerical com-
parisons. Fuzzy decision-making is a powerful tool for
decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Classical deci-
sion-making methods work only with exact and ordinary
data, so there is no place for fuzzy or vague data (Torfi
et al. 2010). Hence, the FMADM method was proposed.
123
222
The MADM methods were widely used in many
decision-making problems. Also, they were used to
select the post-mining land-use. A review on the
related literature shows that Sweigard and Ramani
(1988) were the first researchers who applied the
MADM method to select the post-mining land-use.
Uberman and Ostre˛ga (2005) and Akbari et al. (2006)
used the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for
choosing the post-mining land-use. Bascetin (2007)
used the AHP for selecting optimal post-mining land-
use for coal open-pit mine. Following that, Soltanmo-
hammadi et al. (2008a, 2008b) used two other MADM
methods, PROMETHEE and ELECTRE for determin-
ing the post-mining land-use. However, they did not
use fuzzy MADM, which seems to be better for deci-
sion-making.
Materials and methods
The post-mining land-use alternatives
There are many adopted land-uses that were reported as
successful alternatives and some more that faced failure.
Closer studies showed that sometimes in cases without a
mined land suitability analysis process (Alexander
1996), the obtained result was not acceptable. This
made certain, the merits of a standardized framework
for post-mining land-use selection. Thus, in order to
develop a reliable framework, it is necessary consider
all the possible types of alternatives. Various types of
alternatives could be adopted for post-mining land-use
while the large areas remain unused after the mining
operations. Agricultural and forestry are the best choices
for the land-uses in many countries (Miao and Marrs
2000). It is appropriate to maintain the area as industrial
or commercial site (McHaina 2001).
In addition, reclaimed sites have a wide range of
potential functions such as, hay land, recreational areas,
wetlands, and swimming pools (Cao 2007). Even Meech
et al. (2006) provided a research paper in which a derelict
Britannia mine is converted to a clean, livable, and sus-
tainable community.
Hence, in this study the alternatives divided into
eight main land-uses by Ramani et al. (1990) were
applied to spot the possible post-mining land-uses. The
alternatives proposed to use in this procedure are
agricultural (AGR), forestry (FOR), recreational
(REC), residential (RES), lake or pool (LOP), institu-
tional (INS), commercial (COM), and industrial (IND).
As it can be seen, all types of overall land-uses were
represented although each of them can have many
subsets.
123
Environ Earth Sci (2014) 72:221–231
Fig. 1 Hierarchy structure of economical factors
The post-mining land-use selection effective attributes
There are many attributes that can affect the procedure of
the post-mining land-use selection. Many researchers have
investigated the post-mining land-use with various attri-
butes. Some of them focus on special attributes such as
landscape, hydrology, economical attributes, etc. (Calo and
Parise 2009; Langholtz et al. 2007; Zhi-hong et al. 2006).
Some others focused on the ability to grow plants
(Carrick and Kruger 2007). Gizikoff (2004) and, Zavadskas
and Antucheviciene (2006) investigated many other factors
such as topography, climate, environment, society, econ-
omy, etc. There are also some others who introduced the
packages of the attributes for investigating (Bielecka and
Krol-Korczak 2010; Pavloudakis et al. 2009; Ramani et al.
1990). Therefore, considering these studies, 4 main groups
of factors were introduced which consist of 52 attributes
and sub-attributes. These factors include economical,
environmental, technical, and social. The hierarchy struc-
tures of the attributes are shown in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4. The
economical factors are the most important factors in every
decision-making process, which consists of the attributes
that investigate the alternatives from an economic point of
view.
The economical attributes which must be evaluated in
decision matrix are private (PRI), public (PU), industry
(IND), change in real estate value (CRV), capital cost
(CAC), operational cost (OPC), monitoring and maintain-
ing cost (MMC), and potential of investment observation
(POB).
Also, another main group of factors which contains
attributes that are affected by the environment of the mine
site is the environmental.
Environ Earth Sci (2014) 72:221–231
Fig. 2 Hierarchy structure of
environmental factors
Fig. 3 Hierarchy structure of technical factors
The environmental attributes which must be evaluated in
decision matrix are altitude (ALT), precipitation (PRE),
wind speed (WSP), air moisture (AIM), temperature
(TMP), climate type (CLT), terrestrial ecology (TEE),
aquatic ecology (AQE), exposure to sunshine (EXS),
geology structure (GES), ground water hydrology (GWH),
surface water hydrology (SWH), soil chemical properties
(SCP), soil physical properties (SPP), slope (SLO), surface
relief (SUR), and physical properties of mine properties
(PPC).
Technical attributes signify constraints that each has a
tendency to compel the decision makers to every individual
post-mining land-use that is best suited for technological
deficiencies related to specified attribute. The technical
attributes which must be evaluated in decision matrix are
223
landscape quality (LAQ), availability of reclamation tech-
nique (ART), travel distance (TRD), travel time (TRT),
transportation network (TRN), environmental contamina-
tions (ENC), size and shape of the mine site (SSS), current
(CUR), historical (HIS), land-use plans (LUP), zoning
ordinance (ZOO) and type, and intensity and value of use
(TIV).
At last, one of the most critical factors that should be
considered in procedures of post-mining land-use selection
is the social factors.
The social attributes which should be considered in
decision matrix with FTOPSIS are changes in livelihood
quality (CLQ), ecological acceptability (EAC), tourist
attraction (TAT), employment opportunities (EOP), poli-
cies of mining company (PMC), government policies
(GPO), zoning by-laws (ZBL), location (LOC), population
(POP), population shifts (POS), age distribution (ADI),
density (DEN), educational level (EDL), number of
households (NUH) and consistency with local requirements
(CLR).
Limiting the most important criteria
The limiting method was employed because of large
numbers of criteria, which in some cases were not usable.
Masoumi and Rashidinejad (2011) demonstrated the lim-
iting method to separate the most important attributes
which is applied in this paper. The application of the
method required some judges to answer a prepared ques-
tionnaire. To gain the greatest benefit from this method, it
should be approached as a team effort. Experts in each field
would be responsible for those areas that are specific to
their interests, and they could collaborate in areas of shared
interest (Sweigard and Ramani 1988). It is adjudged that
the evaluators have sufficient experience in the system.
Depending on the number of available experts, it is com-
mon for researches to ask them to answer the questions.
123
224 Environ Earth Sci (2014) 72:221–231

Fig. 4 Hierarchy structure of

social factors

Also a 7-point scale created by the researcher was applied exact value to express the decision maker’s opinion by
to better handle the myriad existing criteria in decision comparing alternatives (Wang and Chen 2007) and it is
making, and to establish a logical interval between differ- often criticized, due to its use of the unbalanced scale of
ent attributes. judgments and its inability to adequately handle the
Then using Eqs. (1) and (2), the filled questionnaires inherent uncertainty and imprecision in the pair-wise
were applied to separate the most important attributes comparison process (Deng 1999). To overcome its short-
according to mine conditions. comings, the fuzzy analytical hierarchy process was
P developed for solving the hierarchical problems. The
evi
mvi ¼ ; i ¼ 1; 2; 3; . . .; n ð1Þ FAHP structures the decision problems at levels, which
Ni
correspond to understanding of the situations, viz., goals,
where mv is the mean value of each criterion, ev is the criteria, sub-criteria, and alternatives. By breaking the
expert value intended for each criterion, N is the number of problem into levels, the decision maker can focus on
experts, and n is the number of criteria. smaller sets of decisions (Bazzazi et al. 2011). A triangular
cv ¼ ðlmv þ hmvÞ=2 ð2Þ fuzzy number includes l, m, and u which are the lower,
mean and upper bounds of the triangular fuzzy number,
where cv is the cut-off value, lmv is the lowest mean value respectively. Equation (3) represents the pair-wise com-
between all mean values, and hmv is the highest mean parison matrix by expert judgment in FAHP by triangular
value between all mean values.  
fuzzy numbers, M = (l, m, u), then M 1 ¼ 1u ; m1 ; 1l for (i,
j = 1, 2,…, n and i = j). Now the first step is to calculate
Applying fuzzy MADM approach the synthetic extend value by Eq. (4).
2 3
Due to the large number of attributes, the FAHP-FTOPSIS ð1; 1; 1Þ M12 . . . M1n
6 M12 1
ð1; 1; 1Þ . . . M2n 7
method as a logical method proposed for assessing them 6 7
A¼6 .. .. .. .. 7 ð3Þ
against alternatives and introduces the optimal post-mining 4 . . . . 5
land-use by ranking them. 1 1
M1n M2n . . . ð1; 1; 1Þ
" #1
Calculating global weights by using FAHP Xn n X
X n
Si ¼ Mij  Mkj ð4Þ
j¼1 k¼1 j¼1
First proposed by Saaty (1980), the analytic hierarchy
process (AHP), has been a tool for decision makers and As M1  M2 = (l1 9 l2, m1 9 m2, u1 9 u2) and
researchers and is one of the most widely used multiple M1 ? M2 = (l1 ? l2, m1 ? m2, u1 ? u2) and note that
criteria decision-making tools (Vaidya and Kumar 2006). the Si is the triangular fuzzy number too. i and k represent
The traditional AHP method is problematic that it uses an rows and j is columns.

123
Environ Earth Sci (2014) 72:221–231 225

Table 1 Scale of decision matrix evaluations

Linguistic variable Very poor Poor Medium-poor Fair Medium-good Good Very good

Fuzzy numbers (1, 1, 2) (1, 2, 3) (2, 3, 4) (3, 4, 5) (4, 5, 6) (5, 6, 7) (6, 7, 7 )

The next step is to calculate the degree of possibility by calculating and reduce the calculation complexity errors
Eq. (5) in following. Note that to compare S1 and S2 it and time consumption.
needs both values of V(S1 C S2) and V(S2 C S1). The first step is to create the decision matrix by the
8 triangular fuzzy numbers. Table 1 represents the scale for
< 1 IF m2  m1
V ðS2  S1 Þ ¼ 0 IF l1  u2 ð5Þ evaluating the decision matrix by experts by considering
: l1 u2
OTHER WISE the mine information.
ðm2 u2 Þðm1 l1 Þ
After creating the decision matrix, the normalized val-
The next step is to calculate the degree of possibility for ues of fuzzy numbers are calculated by Eq. (9) for the
a convex fuzzy number to be greater than k, and the convex benefit attributes and by Eq. (10) for cost attributes.
fuzzy numbers can be defined by:  
lij mij uij
0 r~ij ¼ ; ; ; uj ¼ maxj uij ð9Þ
d ðAi Þ ¼ minV ðSi  Sk Þ ð6Þ uj uj uj
   
for k = 1, 2,…, n and k = i, then the weight vector of lj lj lj
r~ij ¼ ; ; ; lj ¼ minj lij ð10Þ
criteria given by Eq. (7). uij mij lij
0 0 0 0
W ¼ ðd ðA1 Þ; d ðA2 Þ; . . .; d ðAn ÞÞT ð7Þ where the r~ij is the normalized fuzzy value, l, m and u are
the lower, mean and the upper bounds of the fuzzy number,
where Ai (i = 1,2,….,n) are n elements.
respectively, j is the attributes or columns and i is the
Via normalization, the normalized weight vectors are:
alternatives or rows. The next step is to calculate the
W ¼ ðd ðA1 Þ; dðA2 Þ; . . .; dðAn ÞÞT ð8Þ weighted normalized matrix which is computed by Eq. (11).
where W is a non-fuzzy number. V~ij ¼ r~ij  Wj ð11Þ

Selecting the optimal post-mining land-use by using where the V~ij is the weighted normalized values which are
FTOPSIS the fuzzy triangular numbers and it should be noted that Wj
is the weight which has been calculated by FAHP while it
The TOPSIS method was first proposed by Hwang and is not a fuzzy number. Assuming that M is a triangular
Yoon (1981). The basic concept of this method is that the fuzzy number and K is a static crisp value, then
chosen alternatives should have the shortest distance from M*K = (l 9 K, m 9 K, u 9 K). The FPIS and FNIS are
the positive ideal solution and the farthest distance from the calculated by Eqs. (12) and (13).
 
negative ideal solution. In the classical TOPSIS method, Aj ¼ maxi v~ij3 ð12Þ
the weights of the criteria and the ratings of alternatives are  
known precisely and crisp values are used in the evaluation Aj ¼ mini v ~ij1 ð13Þ
process. However, under many conditions crisp data are
where the v~ij3 must be chosen between all the upper bounds
inadequate to model real-life decision problems. Therefore,
in each column and the v~ij1 must be chosen between all the
the fuzzy TOPSIS method is proposed where the ratings of
lower bounds in each column of fuzzy numbers. It means
alternatives are evaluated by linguistic variables repre-
the FPIS is the biggest value between the 3rd values and
sented by fuzzy numbers to deal with the deficiencies in the
the FNIS is the lowest value between the 1st values in the
traditional TOPSIS (Ertugrul and Karakasoglu 2007). In
fuzzy numbers while they must be considered for all the
this paper, the extension of FTOPSIS method is considered
alternatives in each column or criterion separately. The
which Chen (2000) proposed. One of the disadvantages of
distance of each alternative from A* and A- can be
the FTOPSIS method is that it requires the important
currently calculated as:
weights produced by decision makers or by another
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
method, which means that it cannot produce the weights þ 1X ~ 2
itself. Therefore, the FAHP method was introduced above di ¼ Vij  Aj ð14Þ
3
to calculate the important weights. On the other hand, the rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
weights of attributes in this paper are crisp value and they  1X ~ 2
di ¼ Vij  A j ð15Þ
do not change into fuzzy value to simplify the process of 3

123
226 Environ Earth Sci (2014) 72:221–231

Fig. 5 Procedure of selecting

post-mining land-use with
FMADM

7 Important weight
6 cut-off value
weights

5
4
3
2
1
EOP
CO
SLU
SOI
LAQ
ART
SSS
HYG
ALT
TIV
POB
LRE
ENC
CLI
CRV
PCH
LOC
CLQ
TOP
EXS
ECL
LOW
GES
ECT
CLR
ACC

criteria

Fig. 6 Separated attributes for determining the post-mining land-use

(cut-off value = 5.17)

where di is the distance measurement between two fuzzy

numbers.
Once the diþ and di of each alternative has been calcu-
lated, a closeness coefficient is defined to determine the
ranking order of all alternatives. The closeness coefficient Fig. 7 The hierarchy structure of separated attributes according to
the condition of the mine
of each alternative is calculated as:
d Table 2 Pair-wise comparison matrix made by the decision maker
CC ¼ ð16Þ
d þ dþ Pair-wise matrix of social factors EOP LRE
Obviously, an alternative (i) is closer to the FPIS and
EOP (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2)
farther from FNIS as CC approaches 1. Therefore,
LRE (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1)
closeness coefficient can determine the ranking order of
all alternatives and select the best one from a set of feasible
alternatives. fuzzy AHP uses a range of values to incorporate the
The fuzzy AHP method was proposed for determining decision makers’ uncertainty (Demirel et al. 2008). On the
the important weights of criteria as AHP has proved to be other hand, the fuzzy TOPSIS method was administered for
unable to deal with the imprecision and subjectiveness in ranking and selecting the optimal post-mining land-use. It
the pair-wise comparison process. Instead of a crisp value, is based on the concept that the chosen alternatives should

123
Environ Earth Sci (2014) 72:221–231 227

Fig. 8 Global weights of 0.10

attributes calculated by FAHP 0.09

fuzzy AHP weights

0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00

EOP
OPC
CAC
POB
ENC
SSS
CRV
MMC
ART
ALT
TIV
SWH
SPP
SCP
GWH
PMC
LAQ
PRE
CLT
WSP
AIM
TMP
ZBL
GPO
ZOO
LUP

HIS
CUR
Attributes

have the shortest distance from the Positive Ideal Solution to separate the most important criteria, respectively. Fig-
and the farthest from the Negative Ideal Solution (Chen ure 6 represents the procedure of separation. Using this
et al. 2006). The procedure of selecting the optimal alter- approach, an evaluation team of three members, who are
native is shown in Fig. 5. frequently involved in mine planning and equipment
This proposed method intended to apply fuzzy MADM selection in the particular open-pit coal mine operation,
techniques to analyze the provided attributes and alterna- was engaged. While one of them is the project manager of
tives. So, after collecting the possible attributes and alter- this mine, the other evaluator is a product manager from
natives, limiting method was used to separate the most among the mine-planning engineers. And the last one is
important attributes. Then, a combination of fuzzy AHP and from the faculty of the university who is an expert in both
fuzzy TOPSIS methods were applied. Thus, once the global mining and decision-making process fields. Each has more
weights of the attributes were calculated using FAHP, they than 8 years of experience in open-pit mine planning. It is
incorporated into the decision matrix and then would pass to adjudged that the evaluators have sufficient experience in
the FTOPSIS, which is a distance-based MADM technique. the system. Therefore, using three experts’ judgments, the
Finally, method calculated rankings of the post-mining 28 attributes were separated and the attributes’ hierarchy
land-uses and indicated the optimal land-use. structure is shown in Fig. 7. These are the most important
attributes related to this mine from the experts’ point of
view, but it varies in different mines.
Results and discussion The method has the ability to separate the most impor-
tant criteria according to mine conditions. Moreover, it can
Application of limiting method separate the attributes that are used in big mines and need
spatial division and decision-making for every part.
For the proposed method, decision makers make their
judgments based on the information obtained from the The fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approach
surface coal mine. The mine has a lignite reserve of about
200 Mt. The current dimension of the mine is approxi- Because of the importance of weighting in the decision-
mately 8,500 m length by 4,200 m width. The benches’ making process and the uncertainty of the criteria, which
height is 12 m and the face inclination on individual
benches is 60 while overall pit slopes are 45. The average
rainfall is 550 mm/year. The area is approximately 2 km Table 3 Example of fragmented decision matrix
distance from the nearest city. These are some information i j
about the mine. The complete information about the mine
was collected and the experts used them for decision- CAC SSS ENC ART ZBL
making. It should be noted that the values of the criteria Agricultural (1, 2, 3) (5, 6, 7) (1, 1, 2) (5, 6, 7) (5, 6, 7)
might change from one location to another location. Some Forestry (2, 3, 4) (6, 7, 7) (1, 1, 2) (4, 5, 6) (5, 6, 7)
attributes have more importance by considering the mine Recreational (1, 1, 2) (4, 5, 6) (1, 1, 2) (5, 6, 7) (6, 7, 7)
condition. Many criteria influence the post-mining land-use Residential (6, 7, 7) (2, 3, 4) (3, 4, 5) (3, 4, 5) (3, 4, 5)
decision-makings as represented above. However, some Lake or pool (3, 4, 5) (1, 2, 3) (2, 3, 4) (4, 5, 6) (1, 2, 3)
criteria are so important that tend to dominate the decision. Institutional (5, 6, 7) (3, 4, 5) (4, 5, 6) (3, 4, 5) (2, 3, 4)
Therefore, the limiting method was employed. Equations Commercial (4, 5, 6) (3, 4, 5) (3, 4, 5) (3, 4, 5) (2, 3, 4)
(1) and (2) were used to calculate the mean value of Industrial (6, 7, 7) (4, 5, 6) (6, 7, 7) (2, 3, 4) (3, 4, 5)
experts’ judgement about every criterion and cut-off value

123
228 Environ Earth Sci (2014) 72:221–231

Table 4 Fragmented matrix of normalized value

CAC SSS ENC ART ZBL

AGR (0.333, 0.5, 1) (0.714, 0.857, 1) (0.5, 1, 1) (0.714, 0.857, 1) (0.714, 0.857, 1)
FOR (0.25, 0,33, 0.5) (0.857, 1, 1) (0.5, 1, 1) (0.571, 0.714, 0.857) (0.714, 0.857, 1)
REC (0.5, 1, 1) (0.571, 0.714, 0.857) (0.5, 1, 1) (0.714, 0.857, 1) (0.857, 1, 1)
RES (0.143, 0.143, 0.167) (0.286, 0.429, 0.571) (0.2, 0.25, 0.33) (0.429, 0.571, 0.714) (0.429, 0.571, 0.714)
LOP (0.2, 0.25, 0.33) (0.143, 0.286, 0.429) (0.25, 0,33, 0.5) (0.571, 0.714, 0.857) (0.143, 0.286, 0.429)
INS (0.143, 0.167, 0.2) (0.429, 0.571, 0.714) (0.167, 0.2, 0.25) (0.429, 0.571, 0.714) (0.286, 0.429, 0.571)
COM (0.167, 0.2, 0.25) (0.429, 0.571, 0.714) (0.2, 0.25, 0.33) (0.429, 0.571, 0.714) (0.286, 0.429, 0.571)
IND (0.143, 0.143, 0.167) (0.571, 0.714, 0.857) (0.143, 0.143, 0.167) (0.286, 0.429, 0.571) (0.429, 0.571, 0.714)

have a qualitative nature, also due to the complex nature of
the pair-wise comparison process, it is usually very hard to
obtain precise crisp evaluation scores from the decision
makers regarding the decision alternatives. Thus, static
crisp values of the fundamental scale may lack the ability
to catch the decision maker’s subjective preferences (Cakir
2008).
Decision makers usually believe that interval judgments
are more accurate than fixed value judgments. The FAHP
used in this paper is based on Chang’s model (1996).
The pair-wise comparison matrices were constructed
using an expert judgment. Table 2 represents the pair-wise
comparison matrix of social factors between EOP and LRE
as a sample.
Then, the Si is obtained by Eq. (4) while
S1(EOP) = (0.4, 0.6, 0.857) and S2(LRE) = (0.3, 0.4,
0.571). These fuzzy values are compared by using Eq. (5).
V ðS1  S2 Þ ¼ 1; V ðS2  S1 Þ ¼ 0:46
There is only one comparison between these values
because the pair-wise matrix has only two attributes in
this example. Hence, these obtained values from Eq. (5) are
equal to Eqs. (6) and (7). Therefore, the local weights of
the EOP and LRE are obtained by normalization brought in
following.
WEOPðlocalÞ ¼ 0:684; WLREðlocalÞ ¼ 0:316
By multiplying the local weight of EOP for example, in
local weight of Social factors (against the goal level)
calculated in advanced, the global weight of EOP was
obtained.
WEOPðGlobalÞ ¼ 0:68421  0:13842 ¼ 0:09471
where the method has been used for a hypothetical mine
with 50 involved attributes. They found that three TOPSIS
advantages can be identified: (1) a sound logic that simu-
lates the rationale of human choice; (2) a scalar value that
accounts for both the best and worst alternatives simulta-
neously; and (3) a simple computation process that can be
easily programmed into a spreadsheet. TOPSIS also has the
fewest rank reversals among the common MADM meth-
ods. A study by Bazzazi et al. (2008) in which FTOPSIS
was used for selection of the loading-haulage equipment in
open pit mines showed that the proposed method is viable
approach in solving the proposed mining equipment
selection problem. TOPSIS is a viable method for the
proposed problem and is suitable for the use of precise
performance ratings. When the performance ratings are
vague and inaccurate, then the fuzzy TOPSIS is the pre-
ferred technique.
Golestanifar and Bazzazi (2010) used TOPSIS to select
the tailing impoundment site. Li et al. (2011) assessed the
safety condition in four coal mines using the TOPSIS
method. They found that the method is rational, feasible
and scientific, so it could be applied to safety evaluation of
coal mines. Also the method is simple, clear and reason-
able. Gligoric et al. (2010) applied fuzzy TOPSIS to select
the shaft location. To the best of the researches knowledge
FTOPSIS has never been used as a selection criterion for
post-mining land-use. Ertugrul and Karakasoglu (2007)
represented a comparison of FAHP and FTOPSIS methods
for facility location selection and they demonstrated
FTOPSIS has been proved to be one of the best methods
0.09223
0.07823
Important weights

0.1
Thus, the results of global weights of attributes are shown 0.06429
0.05356
in Fig. 8 which can be applied in FTOPSIS for evaluating
0.05
the post-mining land-use. 0.01098
The TOPSIS method has been widely used in the deci-
0
sion-making areas of research. Particularly for mining CAC SSS ENC ART ZBL

decision-making processes, Soltanmohammadi et al. Attributes

(2010) used TOPSIS method for land suitability analyzing
Fig. 9 Important weights calculated by FAHP

123
Environ Earth Sci (2014) 72:221–231 229

Table 5 Fragmented matrix of weighted normalized values and fuzzy positive and negative ideal solution
CAC SSS ENC ART ZBL

AGR (0.031, 0.046, 0.092) (0.046, 0.055, 0.064) (0.039, 0.078, 0.078) (0.038, 0.046, 0.054) (0.008, 0.009, 0.011)
FOR (0.023, 0.031, 0.046) (0.055, 0.064, 0.064) (0.039, 0.078, 0.078) (0.031, 0.038, 0.046) (0.008, 0.009, 0.011)
REC (0.046, 0.092, 0.092) (0.037, 0.046, 0.055) (0.039, 0.078, 0.078) (0.038, 0.046, 0.054) (0.009, 0.011, 0.011)
RES (0.013, 0.013, 0.015) (0.018, 0.028, 0.037) (0.016, 0.02, 0.026) (0.023, 0.031, 0.038) (0.005, 0.006, 0.008)
LOP (0.018, 0.023, 0.031) (0.009, 0.018, 0.028) (0.02, 0.026, 0.039) (0.031, 0.038, 0.046) (0.002, 0.003, 0.005)
INS (0.013, 0.015, 0.018) (0.028, 0.037, 0.046) (0.013, 0.016, 0.02) (0.023, 0.031, 0.038) (0.003, 0.005, 0.006)
COM (0.015, 0.018, 0.023) (0.028, 0.037, 0.046) (0.016, 0.02, 0.026) (0.023, 0.031, 0.038) (0.003, 0.005, 0.006)
IND (0.013, 0.013, 0.015) (0.037, 0.046, 0.055) (0.011, 0.011, 0.013) (0.015, 0.023, 0.031) (0.005, 0.006, 0.008)
A*j (0.092, 0.092, 0.092) (0.064, 0.064, 0.064) (0.078, 0.078, 0.078) (0.054, 0.054, 0.054) (0.011, 0.011, 0.011)
A-
j (0.013, 0.013, 0.013) (0.009, 0.009, 0.009) (0.011, 0.011, 0.011) (0.015, 0.015, 0.015) (0.002, 0.002, 0.002)

Table 6 Distance
di(A*) di(A-) CC Ranking
measurements, closeness
coefficient indexes, and ranks of Agricultural 0.468114203 0.456828212 0.493899085 1
the alternatives
Forestry 0.503112164 0.392833834 0.438457045 5
Recreational 0.545951227 0.368359122 0.402881934 6
Residential 0.580374587 0.29814376 0.339371125 7
Lake or pool 0.588397922 0.30124991 0.338617034 8
Institutional 0.495924057 0.39318219 0.442221829 4
Commercial 0.479227343 0.4103883 0.461309671 2
Industrial 0.493502765 0.393001491 0.443315966 3

Lake or pool
Residential
Recreational
Forestry
Institutional
Industrial
Commercial
Agricultural
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Closeness coefficient
Fig. 10 Preference ranking of post-mining land-use
addressing rank reversal issue that is the change in the ranking
of the alternatives when a non-optimal alternative is intro-
duced. By using FTOPSIS, uncertainty and vagueness from
subjective perception and the experiences of decision-maker
can be effectively represented and reached to a more effective
decision (Ertugrul and Karakasoglu 2007).
A major contribution of fuzzy numbers is its capability
of representing vague data. That also allows mathematical
operators and programs to apply to the fuzzy domain
(Kahraman et al. 2004). Fuzzy numbers allow decision
makers to express approximate or flexible preferences
using fuzzy numbers where adding fuzziness to the input,
imply adding fuzziness to the judgment (Vahidnia et al.
2009). Therefore, the decision fuzzy matrix was created by
expert and a fragmented matrix as shown in Table 3.
It should be noted that there are either the benefit or cost
attributes in TOPSIS decision matrix. Two cost attributes
are demonstrated by white-dark columns in Table 3 (CAC
and ENC).
Table 4 represents the fragmented matrix of normalized
0.6
values and after this step the attributes do not depend on
them, if they are the benefit or cost.
For instance, the weight values are brought in Fig. 9
which are required for the fragmented matrix represented
in this paper. The weighted normalized values, fuzzy
positive-ideal solution (FPIS, A*) and negative-ideal solu-
tion (FNIS, A-) are shown in Table 5 where the results are
fuzzy numbers.
The results of Eqs. (14), (15), and (16) are represented in
Table 6 where the agricultural alternative takes the first
place.
Figure 10 represents the preference ranking of post-
mining land-uses in which agriculture has the bigger
closeness coefficient and introduces as the best alternative.
Conclusion
A combination of two fuzzy MADM methods was applied
to rank and select the post-mining land-use. The FAHP was

123
230
used to obtain the important weights of attributes and
FTOPSIS method for ranking the alternatives. Because of
the uncertain parameters involved in problem, the fuzzy
theory assists to gain better judgments from experts. In this
paper, 52 attributes were employed to consider all criteria
which influence selecting the mined land reclamation
method. All the criteria have impact depending on mine
location, condition, and size. However, there are some
criteria with a larger effect on selection of post-mining
land-use. Therefore, the limiting method was applied to
separate the most important attributes, which limit the large
number of attributes to a finite number. This is in line with
Masoumi and Rashidinejad (2011) who used the limiting
method successfully as a main method to separate the most
important attributes. For the proposed mine, 28 attributes
were separated to be used in the FMADM technique by
three experts. This limitation assists the process of selec-
tion by reducing time consumption and errors in calcula-
tion complexities. Also, this method reduces the human
errors in judging the FMADM techniques and can help
experts to concentrate on lower numbers of criteria either
for pair-wise comparison matrix on FAHP or FTOPSIS
decision matrix. The FAHP rectifies one of the shortcom-
ings of FTOPSIS method which is the inability to produce
important weights. This method improves the process of
decision-making by producing the subjective weights
obtained from expert judgments. A nearly similar approach
was done by Soltanmohammadi et al. (2010) in which
TOPSIS was used as a selection method. Since the present
research aimed to rank and select the optimal post-mining
land-use, the fuzzy theory was applied together with the
TOPSIS method. However, the TOPSIS theory could not
be used alone because of the existence of uncertain
parameters which are commonly considered as the short-
comings of TOPSIS method. By adding fuzzy to TOPSIS,
the distance of alternatives to their Positive and Negative
Ideal Solution is calculated more precisely. Masoumi and
Rashidinejad (2011) used the FAHP-PROMETHEE to
obtain the optimal post-mining land-use at the same mine
which the results of their study demonstrated that the
agricultural is the best alternatives for this type of land. It is
in line with the present research and verifies this model as a
reliable method to select the optimal reclamation method.
According to the results of the study, this model seems to
be beneficial in economical, technical, environmental and
social aspects. Not only does this model help to reduce the
cost and increase the benefits from an economical point of
view, it is also necessary to decrease the environmental
impact of mining, to develop the society confidence to the
mining operation and analyze the method from technical
point of view.
123
Environ Earth Sci (2014) 72:221–231
References
Akbari AD, Osanloo M, Hamidian H (2006) Selecting post mining
land use through analytical hierarchy processing method: case
study in Sungun copper open pit mine of Iran. 15th international
symposium of MPES, Torino, Italy, pp 245–252
Alexander MJ (1996) The effectiveness of small-scale irrigated
agriculture in the reclamation of mine land soils on the Jos
Plateau of Nigeria. Land Degrad Dev 7(1):77–85
Bascetin A (2007) A decision support system using analytical
hierarchy process (AHP) for the optimal environmental recla-
mation of an open-pit mine. Environ Geol 52:663–672
Bazzazi AA, Osanloo M, Soltanmohammadi H (2008) Loading-
haulage equipment selection in open pit mines based on fuzzy-
TOPSIS method. Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi
24:87–102
Bazzazi AA, Osanloo M, Karimi B (2011) Deriving preference order
of open pit mines equipment through MADM methods: appli-
cation of modified VIKOR method. Expert Syst Appl
38:2550–2556
Bielecka M, Krol-Korczak J (2010) Hybrid expert system aiding
design of post-mining regions restoration. Ecol Eng
36:1232–1241
Cakir O (2008) On the order of the preference intensities in fuzzy
AHP. Comput Ind Eng 54:993–1005
Calo F, Parise M (2009) Waste management and problems of
groundwater pollution in karst environments in the context of a
post-conflict scenario: the case of Mostar (Bosnia Herzegovina).
Habitat Int 33:63–72
Cao X (2007) Regulating mine land reclamation in developing
countries: the case of China. Land Use Policy 24:472–483
Carrick PJ, Kruger R (2007) Restoring degraded landscapes in
lowland Namaqualand: lessons from the mining experience and
from regional ecological dynamics. J Arid Environ 32:52–67
Chang DY (1996) Applications of the extent analysis method on
fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 95:649–655
Chen CT (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-
making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 114:1–9
Chen CT, Lin CT, Huang SF (2006) A fuzzy approach for supplier
evaluation and selection in supply chain management. Int J Prod
Econ 102:289–301
Demirel T, Demirel NC, Kahraman C (2008) Fuzzy analytic
hierarchy process and its application. In: Kahraman C (ed)
Fuzzy multi-criteria decision making. Springer Science?Busi-
ness Media LLC, New York, pp 53–83
Deng H (1999) Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pair-wise compar-
ison. Int J Approx Reason 21:215–231
Ertugrul I, Karakasoglu N (2007) Comparison of fuzzy AHP and
fuzzy TOPSIS methods for facility location selection. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 39(7–8):783–795
Gizikoff KG (2004) Re-establishing livestock use on mined land-
scapes in the southern interior of BC. Available online: www.
trcr.bc.ca/docs/2004-gizikoff.pdf
Gligoric Z, Beljic C, Simeunovic V (2010) Shaft location selection at
deep multiple ore body deposit by using fuzzy TOPSIS method
and network optimization. Expert Syst Appl 37(2):1408–1418
Golestanifar M, Bazzazi AA (2010) TISS: a decision framework for
tailing impoundment site selection. Env Earth Sci 61:1505–1513
Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attributes decision making
methods and applications. Springer, Berlin
Kahraman C, Cebeci U, Ruan D (2004) Multi-attribute comparison of
catering service companies using fuzzy AHP: the case of Turkey.
Int J Prod Econ 87:171–184
Environ Earth Sci (2014) 72:221–231
Langholtz M, Carter DR, Rockwood DL, Alavalapati JRR (2007) The
economic feasibility of reclaiming phosphate mined lands with
short-rotation woody crops in Florida. J For Econ 12:237–249
Li MS (2006) Ecological restoration of mineland with particular
reference to the metalliferous mine wasteland in China: a review
of research and practice. Sci Total Environ 357:38–53
Li X, Wang K, Liu L, Xin J, Yang H, Gao C (2011) Application of the
entropy weight and TOPSIS method in safety evaluation of coal
mines. Proced Eng 26:2085–2091
Masoumi I, Rashidinejad F (2011) Preference ranking of post-mining
land-use through LIMA framework. 9th international conference
on clean technologies for the mining industry (Cleanmining),
Santiago, Chile
McHaina DM (2001) Environmental planning considerations for the
decommissioning, closure and reclamation of a mine site. Int J
Surf Min Reclam Environ 15(3):163–176
Meech JA, McPhie M, Clausen K, Simpson Y, Lang B, Campbell E,
Johnstone S, Condon P (2006) Transformation of a derelict mine
site into a sustainable community: the Britannia project. J Clean
Prod 14:349–365
Miao Z, Marrs R (2000) Ecological restoration and land reclamation
in open-cast mines in Shanxi Province China. J Environ Manag
59:205–215
Pavloudakis F, Galetakis M, Roumpos CH (2009) A spatial decision
support system for the optimal environmental reclamation of
open-pit coal mines in Greece. Int J Min Reclam Environ
23(4):291–303
Ramani RV, Sweigard RJ, Clar ML (1990) Reclamation planning. In:
Kennedy BA (ed) Surface mining, 2nd edn. Society for mining,
metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc, Littleton, pp 750–769
Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New
York
Soltanmohammadi H, Osanloo M, Bazzazi AA (2008a) Deriving
preference order of post-mining land-uses through MLSA
View publication stats
231
framework: application of an outranking technique. Environ
Geol 58:877–888
Soltanmohammadi H, Osanloo M, Rezaei B, Aghajani Bazzazi A
(2008b) Achieving to some outranking relationships between
post mining land uses through mined land suitability analysis. Int
J Environ Sci Technol 5(4):535–546
Soltanmohammadi H, Osanloo M, Bazzazi AA (2010) An analytical
approach with a reliable logic and a ranking policy for post-
mining land-use determination. Land Use Policy 27:364–372
Sweigard RJ, Ramani RV (1988) Evaluation of postmining land use
plans using fuzzy set analysis. Transactions of SME-AIME
Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA 282:1854–1859
Torfi F, Farahani RZ, Rezapour S (2010) Fuzzy AHP to determine the
relative weights of evaluation criteria and fuzzy TOPSIS to rank
the alternatives. Appl Soft Comput J 10(2):520–528
Uberman R, Ostre˛ga A (2005) Applying the analytic hierarchy
process in the revitalization of post-mining areas field. ISAHP,
Honolulu
Vahidnia MH, Alesheikh AA, Alimohammadi A (2009) Hospital site
selection using fuzzy AHP and its derivatives. J Environ Manag
90:3048–3056
Vaidya OS, Kumar S (2006) Analytic hierarchy process: an overview
of applications. Eur J Oper Res 169:1–29
Wang TC, Chen YH (2007) Applying consistent fuzzy preference
relations to partnership selection. Omega 35:384–388
Zavadskas EK, Antucheviciene J (2006) Development of an indicator
model and ranking of sustainable revitalization alternatives of
derelict property: a Lithuanian case study. Sustain Dev
14:287–299
Zhi-hong Z, Yi Y, Jing-nan S (2006) Entropy method for determination
of weight of evaluating in fuzzy synthetic evaluation for water
quality assessment indicators. J Environ Sci 18(5):1020–1023
123