4.7 Article

The expected impacts of mining: Stakeholder perceptions of a proposed mineral sands mine in rural Australia

期刊

RESOURCES POLICY
卷 48, 期 -, 页码 129-136

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.03.005

关键词

Mining; Community; Mineral resources; Perceptions; Benefits

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The form and evolution of stakeholder perceptions toward renewable energy (RE) developments continue to be investigated, but there has been little similar research regarding mines. Responses of community members and other stakeholders cannot be expected to evolve the same way between different resource and infrastructure projects. We ask what the various expectations of planned mines are among community members, and what factors impact these expectations. We perform a case study of a planned, large-scale, mineral sands mine in rural Victoria, Australia (2013-2015). Using a closed-question questionnaire (n=32) and semi-structured interviews (n=25), individual and community experiences of the planning process were examined. We explore stakeholder perceptions of the mining company and development process to date, as well as future expectations. Despite the recognition of mining as a normalised part of modern Australian economy and culture, the results revealed a community with low trust in the mining company, and accompanying negative perceptions of their own involvement thus far. These perceptions translated into negative future expectations. Many factors influential in the formation of RE opinions were also significant here, these include: background factors; visual and environmental impacts; and, the actions of the company to date. Other factors are not so prevalent in RE literature and may be specific to mines, these include issues surrounding the rehabilitation of the land and the history of the mining company. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据