IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jrpoli/v38y2013i1p44-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Could a public ecology approach help resolve the mountaintop mining controversy?

Author

Listed:
  • Craynon, John R.
  • Sarver, Emily A.
  • Robertson, David P.

Abstract

In recent years, controversy has grown around decisions related to mountaintop removal mining of coal in Central Appalachia, USA. While this mining method can be particularly efficient, it necessitates removal and relocation of huge volumes of earth—permanently altering the natural landform and potentially impacting local environments and communities. Current decision-making systems and regulatory frameworks have been largely ineffective at incorporating the values and concerns of stakeholders. This is due, in part, to contradicting policies, a legacy of distrust, and problems related to scale. Further, the lack of good civic science related to mountaintop mining and meaningful routes for public involvement have also hampered effective decision-making. We propose that the fundamental concepts of public ecology may provide a progressive approach to resolving these complex issues, and examine the challenges that must be met along the way.

Suggested Citation

  • Craynon, John R. & Sarver, Emily A. & Robertson, David P., 2013. "Could a public ecology approach help resolve the mountaintop mining controversy?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 44-49.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:38:y:2013:i:1:p:44-49
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2012.08.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420712000621
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resourpol.2012.08.001?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. Karin Bäckstrand, 2003. "Civic Science for Sustainability: Reframing the Role of Experts, Policy-Makers and Citizens in Environmental Governance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 3(4), pages 24-41, November.
    2. Bradley C. Karkkainen, 2004. "Post-Sovereign Environmental Governance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 4(1), pages 72-96, February.
    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. Holley, Elizabeth A. & Mitcham, Carl, 2016. "The Pebble Mine Dialogue: A case study in public engagement and the social license to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 18-27.

    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. Real, Alejandra & Hickey, Gordon M., 2013. "Publicly funded research: A participative experience from the Chilean Native Forest Research Fund," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 37-43.
    2. Stevanov, Mirjana & Böcher, Michael & Krott, Max & Krajter, Silvija & Vuletic, Dijana & Orlovic, Sasa, 2013. "The Research, Integration and Utilization (RIU) model as an analytical framework for the professionalization of departmental research organizations: Case studies of publicly funded forest research ins," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 20-28.
    3. David Hess, 2009. "Catalyzing Corporate Commitment to Combating Corruption," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 88(4), pages 781-790, October.
    4. Charles Chester & William Moomaw, 2008. "A taxonomy of collaborative governance: a guide to understanding the diversity of international and domestic conservation accords," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 187-206, September.
    5. Raakjaer, Jesper & Leeuwen, Judith van & Tatenhove, Jan van & Hadjimichael, Maria, 2014. "Ecosystem-based marine management in European regional seas calls for nested governance structures and coordination—A policy brief," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(PB), pages 373-381.
    6. Emma S. Norman, 2019. "Finding Common Ground: Negotiating Downstream Rights to Harvest with Upstream Responsibilities to Protect—Dairies, Berries, and Shellfish in the Salish Sea," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 19(3), pages 77-97, August.
    7. Krūzmētra Maiga & Rivža Baiba & Jasaitis Jonas, 2017. "Performance Agent Groups in the Promotion of Smart Economic Growth," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 9(4), pages 822-831, December.
    8. Elizabeth Allen & Chad Kruger & Fok-Yan Leung & Jennie Stephens, 2013. "Diverse Perceptions of Stakeholder Engagement within an Environmental Modeling Research Team," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(3), pages 343-356, September.
    9. Coleen Fox & Chris Sneddon, 2007. "Transboundary river basin agreements in the Mekong and Zambezi basins: Enhancing environmental security or securitizing the environment?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 237-261, September.
    10. Diarmuid Torney, 2015. "Bilateral Climate Cooperation: The EU’s Relations with China and India," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 15(1), pages 105-122, February.
    11. Hickey, Gordon M., 2013. "International developments in the administration of publicly-funded forest research: A review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-8.

    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:38:y:2013:i:1:p:44-49. 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.