IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v8y2019i1p47-d210799.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatially Integrated Social Sciences with Qualitative GIS to Support Impact Assessment in Mining Communities

Author

Listed:
  • Alex Mark Lechner

    (School of Environmental and Geographical Sciences, University of Nottingham Malaysia, Semenyih 43500, Malaysia
    Regional Water and Land Program, Centre for Water in the Minerals Industry, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane Queensland 4072, Australia)

  • John Owen

    (Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia)

  • Michelle Ang

    (School of Environmental and Geographical Sciences, University of Nottingham Malaysia, Semenyih 43500, Malaysia)

  • Deanna Kemp

    (Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia)

Abstract

Spatially integrated social science is a broad term used to describe the integration of space and place in social science research using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). It includes qualitative GIS approaches, such as geo-ethnology and geo-narratives, which combine qualitative social data with GIS and represent an emerging approach with significant potential for facilitating new insights into the dynamic interactions between mining companies and host communities. Mine operations are unique in their complexity, both in terms of the dynamic and diverse nature of issues and the requirement to integrate knowledge, theories, and approaches from a range of disciplines. In this paper we describe the potential for spatially integrated social science using qualitative GIS to understand the social impacts of mining. We review current literature and propose a framework that incorporates quantitative and qualitative knowledge across social and biophysical domains within a multi-user approach. We provide examples to illustrate how our approach could support past, present, and future assessment of socio-environmental systems in large-scale mining. We conclude by discussing the need for a multi-disciplinary approach to support decision makers and local stakeholders in considering complex social and environmental scenarios.

Suggested Citation

  • Alex Mark Lechner & John Owen & Michelle Ang & Deanna Kemp, 2019. "Spatially Integrated Social Sciences with Qualitative GIS to Support Impact Assessment in Mining Communities," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:8:y:2019:i:1:p:47-:d:210799
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/8/1/47/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/8/1/47/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alex M. Lechner & Bernadetta Devi & Ashlee Schleger & Greg Brown & Phill McKenna & Saleem H. Ali & Shanty Rachmat & Muhammad Syukril & Paul Rogers, 2017. "A Socio-Ecological Approach to GIS Least-Cost Modelling for Regional Mining Infrastructure Planning: A Case Study from South-East Sulawesi, Indonesia," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-14, January.
    2. Gilberthorpe, Emma & Banks, Glenn, 2012. "Development on whose terms?: CSR discourse and social realities in Papua New Guinea's extractive industries sector," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 185-193.
    3. Nicholas A. Bainton & Glenn Banks, 2018. "Land and access: A framework for analysing mining, migration and development in Melanesia," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(5), pages 450-460, September.
    4. Owen, John R. & Kemp, Deanna, 2013. "Social licence and mining: A critical perspective," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 29-35.
    5. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    6. Moran, C.J. & Brereton, D., 2013. "The use of aggregate complaints data as an indicator of cumulative social impacts of mining: A case study from the Hunter valley, NSW, Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 704-712.
    7. Everingham, Jo-Anne & Rolfe, John & Lechner, Alex Mark & Kinnear, Susan & Akbar, Delwar, 2018. "A proposal for engaging a stakeholder panel in planning post-mining land uses in Australia’s coal-rich tropical savannahs," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 397-406.
    8. Raymond, Christopher M. & Kenter, Jasper O. & Plieninger, Tobias & Turner, Nancy J. & Alexander, Karen A., 2014. "Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 145-156.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fraser, Jocelyn & Kunz, Nadja C. & Batdorj, Bulgan, 2019. "Can mineral exploration projects create and share value with communities? A case study from Mongolia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Moomen, Abdul–Wadood & Dewan, Ashraf, 2016. "Analysis of spatial interactions between the Shea industry and mining sector activities in the emerging north-west gold province of Ghana," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 104-111.
    3. Frederiksen, Tomas, 2018. "Corporate social responsibility, risk and development in the mining industry," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 495-505.
    4. Owen, John R. & Kemp, Deanna, 2017. "Social management capability, human migration and the global mining industry," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 259-266.
    5. Ebner, Manuel & Fontana, Veronika & Schirpke, Uta & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2022. "Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem services of mountain lakes in the European Alps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    6. Kemp, Deanna & Owen, John R., 2013. "Community relations and mining: Core to business but not “core business”," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 523-531.
    7. Tang-Lee, Diane, 2016. "Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and public engagement for a Chinese state-backed mining project in Myanmar – Challenges and prospects," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 28-37.
    8. Veldhuizen, Caroline & Desouza, Kevin C. & Bandara, Wasana & Chang, Artemis, 2022. "How much is not enough: Corporate social responsibility and beyond in the resources sector," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    9. Wilson, Sigismond A., 2022. "Measuring the effectiveness of corporate social responsibility initiatives in diamond mining areas of Sierra Leone," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    10. Dallimer, Martin & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Rendon, Olivia & Afionis, Stavros & Bark, Rosalind & Gordon, Iain J. & Paavola, Jouni, 2020. "Taking stock of the empirical evidence on the insurance value of ecosystems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    11. Fordham, Anne Elizabeth & Robinson, Guy M. & Blackwell, Boyd Dirk, 2017. "Corporate social responsibility in resource companies – Opportunities for developing positive benefits and lasting legacies," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 366-376.
    12. Chipangamate, Nelson S. & Nwaila, Glen T. & Bourdeau, Julie E. & Zhang, Steven E., 2023. "Integration of stakeholder engagement practices in pursuit of social licence to operate in a modernising mining industry," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(PB).
    13. Upadhyay, Saurabh, 2023. "Impact of the formal and informal institutions on the performance of Indian mining companies: A fuzzy set QCA analysis," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    14. Lyons, Margaret & Bartlett, Jennifer & McDonald, Paula, 2016. "Corporate social responsibility in junior and mid-tier resources companies operating in developing nations – beyond the public relations offensive," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 204-213.
    15. Anne-Maree Dowd & Michelle Rodriguez & Talia Jeanneret, 2015. "Social Science Insights for the BioCCS Industry," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-19, May.
    16. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chr, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    17. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    18. Franks, Daniel M. & Brereton, David & Moran, Chris J., 2013. "The cumulative dimensions of impact in resource regions," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 640-647.
    19. Hildegunn Mellesmo Aslaksen & Clare Hildebrandt & Hans Chr. Garmann Johnsen, 2021. "The long-term transformation of the concept of CSR: towards a more comprehensive emphasis on sustainability," International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-14, December.
    20. Deanna Kemp & John R. Owen, 2022. "Corporate social irresponsibility, hostile organisations and global resource extraction," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 1816-1824, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:8:y:2019:i:1:p:47-:d:210799. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.