IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jrpoli/v49y2016icp1-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mineral resources and localised development: Q-methodology for rapid assessment of socioeconomic impacts in Rwanda

Author

Listed:
  • Weldegiorgis, Fitsum S.
  • Ali, Saleem H.

Abstract

The regional impacts of large development projects often require rapid appraisal in confined geographies. Impacts have largely been studied at country level, which have often neglected a finer granularity of analysis at sub-national level, which has specific relevance in Africa, since many mineral conflicts on the continent are highly localised. This study applies Q-methodology to quantitatively analyse qualitative perspectives regarding impacts of mining-led development at a district level in Rwanda – a densely populated country with a high economic growth rate. This approach revealed three classes of shared perspectives regarding topics of greatest concern to stakeholders: (a) economic diversification and sustainable socioeconomic development; (b) employment, resettlement, and mining land-use; and (c) income, benefit distribution, and social impacts. The use of this method to consolidate qualitative data through a deliberative process to get an output that can be used for broader geographic comparisons holds much promise for researchers and practitioners alike working in geographies of rapid development.

Suggested Citation

  • Weldegiorgis, Fitsum S. & Ali, Saleem H., 2016. "Mineral resources and localised development: Q-methodology for rapid assessment of socioeconomic impacts in Rwanda," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-11.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:49:y:2016:i:c:p:1-11
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.03.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420716300381
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.03.006?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. Julia Roloff, 2008. "Learning from Multi-Stakeholder Networks: Issue-Focussed Stakeholder Management," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 82(1), pages 233-250, September.
    2. Risdon, Andrea & Eccleston, Chris & Crombez, Geert & McCracken, Lance, 2003. "How can we learn to live with pain? A Q-methodological analysis of the diverse understandings of acceptance of chronic pain," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 375-386, January.
    3. Geraint Ellis & John Barry & Clive Robinson, 2007. "Many ways to say 'no', different ways to say 'yes': Applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 517-551.
    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. Stefanie Streit & Michael Tost & Katharina Gugerell, 2023. "Perspectives on Closure and Revitalisation of Extraction Sites and Sustainability: A Q-Methodology Study," Resources, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Mbilima, Francis, 2021. "Extractive industries and local sustainable development in Zambia: The case of corporate social responsibility of selected metal mines," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    3. El Hadj Matar Gueye & Adel Badri & Bryan Boudreau-Trudel, 2021. "Sustainable development in the mining industry: towards the development of tools for evaluating socioeconomic impact in the Canadian context," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 6576-6602, May.
    4. Cesar Saenz, 2019. "A social conflict diagnostic tool for application in the mining industry: A case study in Peru," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 690-700, May.
    5. Iofrida, Nathalie & De Luca, Anna Irene & Gulisano, Giovanni & Strano, Alfio, 2018. "An application of Q-methodology to Mediterranean olive production – stakeholders' understanding of sustainability issues," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 46-55.
    6. Jan Macháček, 2019. "Typology of Environmental Impacts of Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining in African Great Lakes Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-24, May.
    7. Somaye Narrei & Majid Ataee-pour, 2021. "Assessment of personal preferences concerning the social impacts of mining with choice experiment method," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 34(1), pages 39-49, April.
    8. Didier-Robert Dusengemungu & Zhifang Zhou & Jinhao Liu, 2023. "Overview of mineral reserves availability in Rwanda: opportunities and challenges," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(10), pages 10599-10626, October.
    9. Zeng, Lijun & Wang, Jinfeng & Zhang, Jinshuo & Lv, Jun & Cui, Wei, 2020. "New Urbanization paths in mineral resource abundant regions in China: A three-dimensional cube framework," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    10. Yıldız, Taşkın Deniz, 2021. "Overlapping of natural stone mining field with high-speed train project in Turkey: Was the economic public benefit evaluation made sufficiently?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(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. N. Exel & G. Graaf & P. Rietveld, 2011. "“I can do perfectly well without a car!”," Transportation, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 383-407, May.
    2. Songsore, Emmanuel & Buzzelli, Michael, 2014. "Social responses to wind energy development in Ontario: The influence of health risk perceptions and associated concerns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 285-296.
    3. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    4. Julia Rotter & Peppi-Emilia Airike & Cecilia Mark-Herbert, 2014. "Exploring Political Corporate Social Responsibility in Global Supply Chains," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 125(4), pages 581-599, December.
    5. Walker, Chad & Baxter, Jamie & Ouellette, Danielle, 2015. "Adding insult to injury: The development of psychosocial stress in Ontario wind turbine communities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 358-365.
    6. Haggett, Claire, 2011. "Understanding public responses to offshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 503-510, February.
    7. David Rudolph & Claire Haggett & Mhairi Aitken, 2018. "Community benefits from offshore renewables: The relationship between different understandings of impact, community, and benefit," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(1), pages 92-117, February.
    8. Benjamin Neville & Simon Bell & Gregory Whitwell, 2011. "Stakeholder Salience Revisited: Refining, Redefining, and Refueling an Underdeveloped Conceptual Tool," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 357-378, September.
    9. Cláudio Albuquerque Frate & Christian Brannstrom, 2019. "How Do Stakeholders Perceive Barriers to Large-Scale Wind Power Diffusion? A Q-Method Case Study from Ceará State, Brazil," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-14, May.
    10. Kontogianni, A. & Tourkolias, Ch. & Skourtos, M. & Damigos, D., 2014. "Planning globally, protesting locally: Patterns in community perceptions towards the installation of wind farms," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 170-177.
    11. D׳Souza, Clare & Yiridoe, Emmanuel K., 2014. "Social acceptance of wind energy development and planning in rural communities of Australia: A consumer analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 262-270.
    12. Zhifen Cheng & Shangyi Zhou & Baoxiu Zhang, 2018. "The Spatial Factors of Cultural Identity: A Case Study of the Courtyards in a Historical Residential Area in Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, July.
    13. Andrés Lorente de las Casas & Ivelina Mirkova & Francisco J. Ramos-Real, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Possible Energy Sustainability Solutions in the Hotels of the Canary Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    14. Sybille Sachs & Edwin Rühli & Claude Meier, 2010. "Stakeholder Governance as a Response to Wicked Issues," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 57-64, August.
    15. Tim Jones & Colin G Pooley & Griet Scheldeman & Dave Horton & Miles Tight & Caroline Mullen & Ann Jopson & Anthony Whiteing, 2012. "Moving around the City: Discourses on Walking and Cycling in English Urban Areas," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 44(6), pages 1407-1424, June.
    16. Elise Perrault, 2017. "A ‘Names-and-Faces Approach’ to Stakeholder Identification and Salience: A Matter of Status," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 146(1), pages 25-38, November.
    17. Liu, Feng & Lyu, Tao & Pan, Li & Wang, Fei, 2017. "Influencing factors of public support for modern coal-fired power plant projects: An empirical study from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 398-406.
    18. Michal Zdziarski & Robert G. Boutilier, 2016. "Strategic Challenges in Stakeholder Networks (Strategiczne wyzwania w sieciach interesariuszy)," Problemy Zarzadzania, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 14(64), pages 62-79.
    19. Domenico Dentoni & Verena Bitzer & Greetje Schouten, 2018. "Harnessing Wicked Problems in Multi-stakeholder Partnerships," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(2), pages 333-356, June.
    20. Aitken, Mhairi, 2010. "Wind power and community benefits: Challenges and opportunities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 6066-6075, October.

    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:49:y:2016:i:c:p:1-11. 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.