IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jrpoli/v62y2019icp125-135.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public perceptions of established and emerging mining technologies in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Lacey, Justine
  • Malakar, Yuwan
  • McCrea, Rod
  • Moffat, Kieren

Abstract

Technology plays a central role in mining activities throughout Australia and is critical to achieving greater economic and environmental sustainability. Our choices about which technologies to develop, adopt and deploy in the landscape reflect one of the most critical interfaces between mining and society. There have been numerous reviews and studies of the social licence of the mining industry, which have examined the way in which public perceptions influence the broad acceptance and approval of mining activities. However, very few studies have examined public perceptions of the technologies and extractive methods used by the mining industry. This paper therefore contributes to expand the scope of this mining-society scholarship by understanding the drivers that shape public perceptions in relation to established and emerging mining technologies. We present findings from a survey of Australian citizens (N = 476) that tested their general awareness of and response to different types of mining technologies and extraction methods that are currently in use. These included comparisons between three broad methods of resource extraction technologies including open cut, underground and in situ leach mining. Hydraulic fracturing, a technology that is used in conjunction with some forms of resource extraction, was also included. In this paper, we examine the relationships between the public's self-rated knowledge of these four mining technologies, their perceptions of the environmental and safety impacts of those technologies, and their level of acceptance of each mining technology using descriptive statistics and path analysis. Our research found that higher levels of overall acceptance were expressed for established technologies such as open cut and underground mining. However, our results also reveal a nuanced role for the type of knowledge that citizens may have about novel and emerging technologies in determining their acceptance of these technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Lacey, Justine & Malakar, Yuwan & McCrea, Rod & Moffat, Kieren, 2019. "Public perceptions of established and emerging mining technologies in Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 125-135.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:62:y:2019:i:c:p:125-135
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.03.018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420719300492
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.03.018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Bice, Sara & Brueckner, Martin & Pforr, Christof, 2017. "Putting social license to operate on the map: A social, actuarial and political risk and licensing model (SAP Model)," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 46-55.
    2. Lauren A. Fleishman & Wändi Bruine De Bruin & M. Granger Morgan, 2010. "Informed Public Preferences for Electricity Portfolios with CCS and Other Low‐Carbon Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1399-1410, September.
    3. Payne, John W & Bettman, James R & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 243-270, December.
    4. Shandro, Janis A. & Veiga, Marcello M. & Shoveller, Jean & Scoble, Malcolm & Koehoorn, Mieke, 2011. "Perspectives on community health issues and the mining boom-bust cycle," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 178-186, June.
    5. Haslam McKenzie, Fiona M. & Hoath, Aileen, 2014. "The socio-economic impact of mine industry commuting labour force on source communities," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 45-52.
    6. Boudet, Hilary & Clarke, Christopher & Bugden, Dylan & Maibach, Edward & Roser-Renouf, Connie & Leiserowitz, Anthony, 2014. "“Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 57-67.
    7. Philip Macnaghten, 2017. "Public perception: Distrust for fracking," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 2(5), pages 1-2, May.
    8. Mudd, Gavin M., 2010. "The Environmental sustainability of mining in Australia: key mega-trends and looming constraints," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 98-115, June.
    9. Moffat, Kieren & Zhang, Airong, 2014. "The paths to social licence to operate: An integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 61-70.
    10. Lacey, Justine & Carr-Cornish, Simone & Zhang, Airong & Eglinton, Kelvyn & Moffat, Kieren, 2017. "The art and science of community relations: Procedural fairness at Newmont's Waihi Gold operations, New Zealand," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 245-254.
    11. Park, C Whan & Lessig, V Parker, 1981. "Familiarity and Its Impact on Consumer Decision Biases and Heuristics," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 8(2), pages 223-230, September.
    12. Omar H. M. N. Bashar, 2015. "The Trickle‐down Effect of the Mining Boom in Australia: Fact or Myth?," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 91(S1), pages 94-108, June.
    13. Ruth F.G. William s & D.P. Doessel, 2016. "Reallocating Australia's Scarce Mental Health Resources," Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics, vol. 23(1), pages 47-72.
    14. Mason, Claire M. & Paxton, Gillian & Parsons, Richard & Parr, Joanna M. & Moffat, Kieren, 2014. "“For the benefit of Australians”: Exploring national expectations of the mining industry," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1-8.
    15. Clarke, Christopher E. & Bugden, Dylan & Hart, P. Sol & Stedman, Richard C. & Jacquet, Jeffrey B. & Evensen, Darrick T.N. & Boudet, Hilary S., 2016. "How geographic distance and political ideology interact to influence public perception of unconventional oil/natural gas development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 301-309.
    16. Matlaba, Valente J. & Mota, José Aroudo & Maneschy, Maria Cristina & Filipe dos Santos, Jorge, 2017. "Social perception at the onset of a mining development in Eastern Amazonia, Brazil," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 157-166.
    17. van der Plank, Sien & Walsh, Bríd & Behrens, Paul, 2016. "The expected impacts of mining: Stakeholder perceptions of a proposed mineral sands mine in rural Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 129-136.
    18. Wright, Susan & Bice, Sara, 2017. "Beyond social capital: A strategic action fields approach to social licence to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 284-295.
    19. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & Farla, Jacco C.M., 2014. "Identifying and explaining public preferences for the attributes of energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 71-82.
    20. Mercer-Mapstone, Lucy & Rifkin, Will & Louis, Winnifred & Moffat, Kieren, 2017. "Meaningful dialogue outcomes contribute to laying a foundation for social licence to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 347-355.
    21. Lei Zhang & Gui-zhen He & Arthur P.J. Mol & Yong-long Lu, 2013. "Public perceptions of environmental risk in China," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 195-209, February.
    22. Hajkowicz, Stefan A. & Heyenga, Sonja & Moffat, Kieren, 2011. "The relationship between mining and socio-economic well being in Australia's regions," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 30-38, March.
    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. Walton, Andrea & McCrea, Rod, 2020. "Understanding social licence to operate for onshore gas development: How the underlying drivers fit together," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    2. Ming Li & Yueguan Yan & Huayang Dai & Zhaojiang Zhang, 2023. "Study on Rock and Surface Subsidence Laws of Super-High Water Material Backfilling and Mining Technology: A Case Study in Hengjian Coal Mine," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-22, May.
    3. Woźniak, Justyna & Jurczyk, Weronika, 2020. "Social and environmental activities in the Polish mining region in the context of CSR," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    4. Holcombe, Sarah & Kemp, Deanna, 2019. "Indigenous peoples and mine automation: An issues paper," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1-1.
    5. McCrea, Dr Rod & Walton, Dr Andrea & Jeanneret, Ms Talia, 2020. "An opportunity to say no: Comparing local community attitudes toward onshore unconventional gas development in pre-approval and operational phases," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    6. Mononen, Tuija & Sihvonen, Jukka & Sairinen, Rauno & Tiainen, Heidi, 2023. "Local governance of the mining industry—five Finnish examples," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    7. Beland Lindahl, Karin & Suopajärvi, Leena & Tulilehto, Mari & Poelzer, Gregory & Eerola, Toni, 2023. "Factors affecting local attitudes to mineral exploration: What's within the company's control?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).

    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. Walton, Andrea & McCrea, Rod, 2020. "Understanding social licence to operate for onshore gas development: How the underlying drivers fit together," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    2. Alberto Diantini & Salvatore Eugenio Pappalardo & Tim Edwards Powers & Daniele Codato & Giuseppe Della Fera & Marco Heredia-R & Francesco Facchinelli & Edoardo Crescini & Massimo De Marchi, 2020. "Is this a Real Choice? Critical Exploration of the Social License to Operate in the Oil Extraction Context of the Ecuadorian Amazon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-24, October.
    3. Yıldız, Taşkın Deniz & Kural, Orhan, 2020. "The effects of the mining operation activities permit process on the mining sector in Turkey," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    4. Ryan D. Bergstrom & Afton Clarke-Sather, 2020. "Balancing Socio-Ecological Risks, Politics, and Identity: Sustainability in Minnesota’s Copper-Nickel-Precious Metal Mining Debate," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-23, December.
    5. França Pimenta, Adriano Augusto & Demajorovic, Jacques & Saraiva de Souza, Maria Tereza & de Carvalho Pedro, Samara & Pisano, Viviane, 2021. "Social licence to operate model: Critical factors of social acceptance of mining in the Brazilian Amazon," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    6. Matlaba, Valente J. & Mota, José Aroudo & Maneschy, Maria Cristina & Filipe dos Santos, Jorge, 2017. "Social perception at the onset of a mining development in Eastern Amazonia, Brazil," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 157-166.
    7. Walsh, Bríd & van der Plank, Sien & Behrens, Paul, 2017. "The effect of community consultation on perceptions of a proposed mine: A case study from southeast Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 163-171.
    8. Valente José Matlaba & Maria Cristina Maneschy & Jorge Filipe dos Santos & José Aroudo Mota, 2019. "Socioeconomic dynamics of a mining town in Amazon: a case study from Canaã dos Carajás, Brazil," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 32(1), pages 75-90, April.
    9. Xu, Min & Liu, Yong & Cui, Caiyun & Xia, Bo & Ke, Yongjian & Skitmore, Martin, 2023. "Social acceptance of NIMBY facilities: A comparative study between public acceptance and the social license to operate analytical frameworks," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    10. Howse, Tara, 2022. "Trust and the social licence to operate in the Guatemalan mining sector: Escobal Mine case study," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    11. Cruz, Thiago Leite & Matlaba, Valente José & Mota, José Aroudo & Filipe dos Santos, Jorge, 2021. "Measuring the social license to operate of the mining industry in an Amazonian town: A case study of Canaã dos Carajás, Brazil," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    12. van der Plank, Sien & Walsh, Bríd & Behrens, Paul, 2016. "The expected impacts of mining: Stakeholder perceptions of a proposed mineral sands mine in rural Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 129-136.
    13. Richert, Claire & Rogers, Abbie & Burton, Michael, 2015. "Measuring the extent of a Social License to Operate: The influence of marine biodiversity offsets in the oil and gas sector in Western Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 121-129.
    14. Leeuwerik, R.N.C. & Rozemeijer, M.J.C. & van Leeuwen, J., 2021. "Conceptualizing the interaction of context, process and status in the Social License to operate: The case of marine diamond mining in Namibia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    15. Zhang, Airong & Moffat, Kieren, 2015. "A balancing act: The role of benefits, impacts and confidence in governance in predicting acceptance of mining in Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 25-34.
    16. Robinson, Lucy M. & Fardin, Joe & Boschetti, Fabio, 2020. "Clarifying the current role of a social licence in its legal and political context: An examination of mining in Western Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    17. Xexakis, Georgios & Hansmann, Ralph & Volken, Sandra P. & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2020. "Models on the wrong track: Model-based electricity supply scenarios in Switzerland are not aligned with the perspectives of energy experts and the public," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    18. Clarke, Christopher E. & Evensen, Darrick T.N., 2023. "Attention to news media coverage of unconventional oil/gas development impacts: Exploring psychological antecedents and effects on issue support," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    19. Svobodova, Kamila & Yellishetty, Mohan & Vojar, Jiri, 2019. "Coal mining in Australia: Understanding stakeholder knowledge of mining and mine rehabilitation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 421-430.
    20. Edwards, Michelle L., 2018. "Public perceptions of energy policies: Predicting support, opposition, and nonsubstantive responses," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 348-357.

    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:62:y:2019:i:c:p:125-135. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/30467 .

    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.