- Ashoka Centre for People Centric Energy Transition, India (amrapali.tiwari@ashoka.edu.in)
As coal-dependent regions increasingly transition away from fossil fuels, questions about how to responsibly close and transform coal mines have gained global attention. In India, where coal mining has created monoeconomies with considerable informal and semi-/unskilled employment opportunities, the closure and transition of coal mines has significant implications for mining communities’ livelihoods and landscapes. However, existing approaches to post-mining land management globally tend to prioritize technical remediation and environmental compliance associated with mine closure and often overlook the voices and priorities of affected communities. Where stakeholder perspectives are solicited, it is most often through structured, quantitative multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) techniques incorporating the perspectives of mining personnel and geotechnical experts rather than community members. Even while India and other countries (e.g., Australia) champion the use of participatory methods and stakeholder involvement in mine‑closure planning, there is still no agreed-upon set of protocols for fostering consistent, in-depth engagement. A critical gap persists between grassroots, community‑led initiatives and more technical top-down approaches, and research from the social sciences on mining remains notably scarce.
This study addresses this gap in the post-mining land use (PMLU) literature by explicitly incorporating social and community priorities into suitability assessments of PMLUs in the Indian context. We propose a “people-centric” approach integrating spatial‑decision support tools with social‑ecological systems thinking, which enables the identification of PMLUs which are not only suitable to the specificities of the mine site, but in line with more pressing socio-economic needs faced by surrounding stakeholders, particularly mining communities. Our three phase approach includes I) compiling information about the mine site, key stakeholders, and the regional context, II) understanding the social-ecological system the mine site is situated in, and III) developing spatially-explicit PMLU recommendations that are both technically appropriate for the site and match stakeholder needs and priorities.
Phase I involves (re)assessing the mine site to ensure the site meets baseline environmental standards as well as engaging with regional and local stakeholders to solicit priorities, build trust, and set expectations. Phase II uses qualitative system dynamics modelling and causal loop diagrams to understand key social-ecological linkages and feedbacks, and then match the most relevant PMLUs to stakeholder priorities. Phase III involves identifying relevant geotechnical, biophysical, and socioeconomic criteria for each selected PMLU, and conducting a geographic information system (GIS)-MCDA with conflict resolution algorithms to map the most suitable locations within the mine site for each use.
Our workflow is designed to be flexible and responsive to changes in context; each phase operates along a spectrum of Low‑Medium‑High complexity, allowing for differences in data availability and time/resource constraints for stakeholder consultations, which is particularly important in low and middle income contexts like India. By foregrounding community priorities and embracing mixed-methods, we seek to bridge the gap between geotechnical and socio-cultural approaches to coal mine repurposing, identifying PMLUs that are not only technically feasible, environmentally sound, and economically viable, but deliver tangible livelihood benefits while preserving sociocultural ties to the landscape.
How to cite: Tiwari, A., Ramachandran, A., and Chowdhary, V.: A People-Centric Approach to Repurposing Coal Mines in India, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-5100, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-5100, 2026.
Comments on the supplementary material
AC: Author Comment | CC: Community Comment | Report abuse
Hello, my name is Jeeyoun Kim from Yonsei University. Yesterday, I presented my research titled “Beyond Metric-Centric Adaptation: Redefining Occupational Heatwave Governance through Living Lab Co-creation.” I found some similarities between your research and mine, especially in how local knowledge and technical assessment are connected in adaptation-related decision-making. So I would like to ask a question.
If GIS-based suitability and community priorities do not align, which one takes priority in the final land-use decision? And how does your framework handle this mismatch?
Reply
Hi Jeeyoun Kim, Great question. In our framework, there isn’t a strict priority given to either GIS suitability or community preferences.
Because we take a people-centric approach, community priorities are built into the model as weights, while GIS suitability acts as a biophysical constraint. So when there is a mismatch for example, a land use strongly preferred by the community but with low spatial suitability the framework doesn’t “choose one over the other” in a binary way. Instead, it handles this through the weighted multi criteria decision analysis in combination of Multi Objective land allocation (MOLA). The weights (derived from stakeholder engagement) influence how strongly a PMLU is prioritized in the final allocation and the GIS suitability layers determine where and to what extent that PMLU can realistically be implemented. Integrating these approches yield a comprehensive people centric and realistically possible land use option.
If you’re interested, I’d be curious how your living lab approach handles similar tensions, particularly if those negotiations happen inside the model or outside it through deliberation.
Reply
Thank you so much for your thoughtful response. I also found it interesting that, just like the title of your presentation, the name of your institution — the Ashoka Centre for People-centric Energy Transition(https://acpet.ashoka.edu.in/)— also emphasizes a people-centric approach. I also visited the Centre’s website and saw the phrase, “Co-designing workable solutions that are community-centric, scalable, and adaptable with government, industry, and local communities.” This helped me see that your Centre already takes an approach very close to the Living Lab methodology, especially through co-design with multiple stakeholders.
I originally hoped to join the discussion, but unfortunately I could not enter the session properly due to a technical issue. So I truly appreciated your written response. It helped me understand your framework much more clearly.
If I understood correctly, your framework does not simply choose between GIS suitability and community preferences. Instead, community preferences are reflected as weights, while GIS suitability works as a biophysical constraint. In that sense, the model seems to search for a realistic point of balance between what communities prefer and what is spatially possible.
Reading your explanation also made me think about how community preferences are formed. Even in a people-centric approach, communities are not always homogeneous, and some voices may be more visible than others. This is where I think the Living Lab methodology can be useful, as it can help reflect diverse perspectives within a community.
This is actually where my original question came from, as it connects closely to a point I have been struggling with in my own research on workers’ heat risk, which I presented yesterday. In that research, I also encounter tensions between different forms of evidence, such as physiological indicators and workers’ perceived heat risk. In climate adaptation, the goal is not always to find a simple middle point. Sometimes, because decisions need to protect people in practice, one form of evidence may need to be treated as more urgent or more relevant in a specific context. This is something I have been thinking about recently, and your framework helped me reflect on it more clearly.
I would also be very interested in learning more about how your Centre applies co-design and Living Lab-like methodologies in practice, if there is an opportunity in the future. Thank you again for your helpful response. It gave me a lot to think about in relation to my own work. I also appreciated your excellent presentation.
Reply
Thank you so much for your thoughtful response. I also found it interesting that, just like the title of your presentation, the name of your institution — the Ashoka Centre for People-centric Energy Transition(https://acpet.ashoka.edu.in/)— also emphasizes a people-centric approach. I also visited the Centre’s website and saw the phrase, “Co-designing workable solutions that are community-centric, scalable, and adaptable with government, industry, and local communities.” This helped me see that your Centre already takes an approach very close to the Living Lab methodology, especially through co-design with multiple stakeholders.
I originally hoped to join the discussion, but unfortunately I could not enter the session properly due to a technical issue. So I truly appreciated your written response. It helped me understand your framework much more clearly.
If I understood correctly, your framework does not simply choose between GIS suitability and community preferences. Instead, community preferences are reflected as weights, while GIS suitability works as a biophysical constraint. In that sense, the model seems to search for a realistic point of balance between what communities prefer and what is spatially possible.
Reading your explanation also made me think about how community preferences are formed. Even in a people-centric approach, communities are not always homogeneous, and some voices may be more visible than others. This is where I think the Living Lab methodology can be useful, as it can help reflect diverse perspectives within a community.
This is actually where my original question came from, as it connects closely to a point I have been struggling with in my own research on workers’ heat risk, which I presented yesterday. In that research, I also encounter tensions between different forms of evidence, such as physiological indicators and workers’ perceived heat risk. In climate adaptation, the goal is not always to find a simple middle point. Sometimes, because decisions need to protect people in practice, one form of evidence may need to be treated as more urgent or more relevant in a specific context. This is something I have been thinking about recently, and your framework helped me reflect on it more clearly.
I would also be very interested in learning more about how your Centre applies co-design and Living Lab-like methodologies in practice, if there is an opportunity in the future. Thank you again for your helpful response. It gave me a lot to think about in relation to my own work. I also appreciated your excellent presentation.
Reply
Post a comment