IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jrpoli/v37y2012i1p1-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public preferences for timeliness and quality of mine site rehabilitation. The case of bauxite mining in Western Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Burton, Michael
  • Jasmine Zahedi, Shegufa
  • White, Ben

Abstract

Government departments that regulate environmental management for mining have a range of choices about the timing and quality of rehabilitation. Economic theory suggests that the cost incurred by firms should relate to the social cost of the environmental damage, however, there has been little work done on non-market values for mine rehabilitation. This study uses choice modelling to assess these issues for bauxite mining in state owned native forest in south-west Australia. The results show that the public place a relatively high value on the re-creation of vertebrate habitat and would prefer in situ mine rehabilitation over environmental offsets. Alcoa's current rehabilitation practices appear to be supported by the preferences revealed in this study.

Suggested Citation

  • Burton, Michael & Jasmine Zahedi, Shegufa & White, Ben, 2012. "Public preferences for timeliness and quality of mine site rehabilitation. The case of bauxite mining in Western Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-9.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:37:y:2012:i:1:p:1-9
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2012.01.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420712000050
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen K. Swallow & Michael P. McGonagle, 2006. "Public Funding of Environmental Amenities: Contingent Choices Using New Taxes or Existing Revenues for Coastal Land Conservation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 56-67.
    2. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), December.
    3. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), September.
    4. White, Ben & Doole, Graeme J. & Pannell, David J. & Florec, Veronique, 2012. "Optimal environmental policy design for mine rehabilitation and pollution with a risk of non-compliance owing to firm insolvency," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 56(2), June.
    5. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1991. "Three Methods for Calculating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities: A Comparison," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 199-209.
    6. John Bergstrom & Kevin Boyle & Mitsuyasu Yabe, 2004. "Trading Taxes vs. Paying Taxes to Value and Finance Public Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(4), pages 533-549, August.
    7. Allen, Christopher & Gooday, Peter, 1998. "Incorporating biological regeneration into economic assessments of mining in forest regions," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(1), March.
    8. Mark Morrison & Darla Hatton MacDonald, 2011. "A comparison of compensating surplus and budget reallocation with opportunity costs specified," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(30), pages 4677-4688.
    9. Paulo Nunes & Chiara Travisi, 2009. "Comparing Tax and Tax Reallocation Payments in Financing Rail Noise Abatement Programmes: Results from a Stated Choice Valuation Study in Italy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(4), pages 503-517, August.
    10. Gillespie, Robert & Kragt, Marit Ellen, 2010. "Valuing the Non-Market Impacts of Underground Coal Mining," Working Papers 98239, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    11. Alan Randall & Orlen Grunewald & Sue Johnson & Richard Ausness & Angelos Pagoulatos, 1978. "Reclaiming Coal Surface Mines in Central Appalachia: A Case Study of the Benefits and Costs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 54(4), pages 472-489.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2014. "Valuation framing and attribute scope variation in a choice experiment to asses the impacts of changing land use from agriculture to mining," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Maquarie, Australia 165888, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Ben White, 2015. "Do control rights determine the optimal extension of liability to investors? The case of environmental policy for mines," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 26-52, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Choice modelling; Bauxite; Mine rehabilitation; Environmental policy; Non-market valuation;

    JEL classification:

    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:jrpoli:v:37:y:2012:i:1:p:1-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/30467 .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.