4.7 Article

Moral panic related to mineral development projects - Examples from Poland

期刊

RESOURCES POLICY
卷 45, 期 -, 页码 29-36

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2015.03.009

关键词

Mining; Social conflicts; Public opinion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper describes a moral panic as a social phenomenon in relation to the issue of mineral development projects. A moral panic involves creating a sense of insecurity in a group of people by exaggerating facts that are perceived as a social problem. Mineral exploration and exploitation are activities that are particularly likely to spark public protests because of the common misunderstanding of the character and scale of the impact that they might have on the natural environment and local community. The paper presents the sources, mechanisms and results of such a moral panic based on the examples from Poland concerning various kinds of mineral resources that are extracted with the use of different methods and on a different scale. The perceived threats associated with mineral exploitation are often exaggerated and sometimes completely false, which is because society is susceptible to manipulation by the media. This causes substantial financial losses not only for exploration and mining companies which are forced to give up their projects even though particular environmental requirements are met, but also for the local communities themselves since they are deprived of potential jobs as well as income from taxes and mining royalties. The phenomenon of moral panic related to mineral development is a serious problem also because local government activists increasingly more often create such a panic out of political expediency. This kind of panic can also be created by other interest groups. It should be emphasised that resistance to a moral panic does not mean that one cannot object to geological and mining activities when this is justified; then such protests can be even more effective. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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