IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v79y2018icp263-284.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Challenges to access and safeguard mineral resources for society: A case study of kaolin in Portugal

Author

Listed:
  • Lopes, C.
  • Lisboa, V.
  • Carvalho, J.
  • Mateus, A.
  • Martins, L.

Abstract

Present and future demands of minerals require enlightened land use policies and practices that consider geological resources as a whole, anticipating potential conflicts and proposing/monitoring solutions to ensure the access to mineral resources and their responsible use. The use of a multi-criteria methodology able to balance the geological knowledge (grounding the identification of mineral resources) with the economic, environmental and social dimensions implicated in their current or foreseen exploitation may provide the way needed to conciliate the foremost goals of any mining planning and land-use planning exercises. The safeguarding of kaolin resources was the selected case study because: (i) the current and future access to these resources are confronted with different types of conflicts with other land uses; (ii) the exploitation and transformation of kaolin are increasingly important to the regional and national economy, generating as well numerous jobs all over the added value chain and attracting foreign investment; and (iii) the historical environmental liabilities related to old exploitations that still grounds strong apprehensions by the public in general. In this study, the Portuguese kaolin resources were represented by 136 specific tracts, 110 being classified as of “public importance” after considering criteria supporting the geological knowledge dimension. Preceded by a structured point densification scheme, an interpolation process was performed, within the kriging formalism. The resulting map delimited a total area of ≈342 km2 (0.4% of Portugal mainland) whose intrinsic value should support a safeguarding decision on the current and future access to kaolin resources in Portugal mainland. The 29 active and productive mines were further classified based on the economic, environmental and social dimensions and distributed within the three levels of priority for safeguarding, as proposed by the methodology. The results achieved are underestimated mostly due to several limitations of the available databases. Nevertheless, this remains a powerful potential tool to be applied for kaolin mineral resources safeguarding in two distinct and coexisting ways: (1) for future access, ensuring the supply of forthcoming generations and avoiding the sterilisation of tracts of “public importance”; and (2) for the short-medium term access, assigning specific areas to exploitation activities, regularly supplying the industry and markets. This methodology has been successfully applied to other minerals (e.g. Mateus et al., 2017), but additional efforts must be made to extend the assessment to other raw materials.

Suggested Citation

  • Lopes, C. & Lisboa, V. & Carvalho, J. & Mateus, A. & Martins, L., 2018. "Challenges to access and safeguard mineral resources for society: A case study of kaolin in Portugal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 263-284.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:79:y:2018:i:c:p:263-284
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.07.035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837718306495
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.07.035?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. Owen, John R. & Kemp, Deanna, 2014. "‘Free prior and informed consent’, social complexity and the mining industry: Establishing a knowledge base," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 91-100.
    2. A. Mateus & C. Lopes & L. Martins & J. Carvalho, 2017. "Towards a multi-dimensional methodology supporting a safeguarding decision on the future access to mineral resources," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 30(3), pages 229-255, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Richard Cowell & Susan Owens, 1998. "Suitable Locations: Equity and Sustainability in the Minerals Planning Process," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(9), pages 797-811.
    5. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    6. Saleem H. Ali & Damien Giurco & Nicholas Arndt & Edmund Nickless & Graham Brown & Alecos Demetriades & Ray Durrheim & Maria Amélia Enriquez & Judith Kinnaird & Anna Littleboy & Lawrence D. Meinert & R, 2017. "Mineral supply for sustainable development requires resource governance," Nature, Nature, vol. 543(7645), pages 367-372, March.
    7. Richard Cowell & Jonathan Murdoch, 1999. "Land Use and the Limits to (Regional) Governance: Some Lessons from Planning for Housing and Minerals in England," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(4), pages 654-669, December.
    8. United Nations, 2016. "The Sustainable Development Goals 2016," Working Papers id:11456, eSocialSciences.
    9. Munasinghe, M., 1993. "Environmental Economics and Sustainable Development," Papers 3, World Bank - The World Bank Environment Paper.
    10. United Nations UN, 2015. "Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," Working Papers id:7559, eSocialSciences.
    11. Tiess, Guenter, 2010. "Minerals policy in Europe: Some recent developments," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 190-198, September.
    12. Wrighton, C.E. & Bee, E.J. & Mankelow, J.M., 2014. "The development and implementation of mineral safeguarding policies at national and local levels in the United Kingdom," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 160-170.
    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. Aldakhil, Abdullah Mohammed & Nassani, Abdelmohsen A. & Zaman, Khalid, 2020. "The role of technical cooperation grants in mineral resource extraction: Evidence from a panel of 12 abundant resource economies," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    2. Song, Malin & Xie, Qianjiao & Shahbaz, Muhammad & Yao, Xin, 2023. "Economic growth and security from the perspective of natural resource assets," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    3. Zheng, Shuxian & Zhou, Xuanru & Xing, Wanli & Zhao, Pei, 2022. "Analysis on the evolution characteristics of kaolin international trade pattern based on complex networks," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    4. Yıldız, Taşkın Deniz, 2020. "Effects of the private land acquisition process and costs on mining enterprises before mining operation activities in Turkey," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    5. António Mateus & Luís Martins, 2021. "Building a mineral-based value chain in Europe: the balance between social acceptance and secure supply," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 34(2), pages 239-261, July.
    6. Yıldız, Taşkın Deniz, 2021. "Overlapping of mine sites and highway route in Turkey: Evaluation in terms of mining land use criteria and land-use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    7. Carvalho, Jorge & Galos, Krzysztof & Kot-Niewiadomska, Alicja & Gugerell, Katharina & Raaness, Agnes & Lisboa, Vitor, 2021. "A look at European practices for identifying mineral resources that deserve to be safeguarded in land-use planning," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    8. António Mateus & Catarina Lopes & Luís Martins & Mário Abel Gonçalves, 2021. "Current and Foreseen Tungsten Production in Portugal, and the Need of Safeguarding the Access to Relevant Known Resources," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-26, June.
    9. Wei, Jing & Zhang, Jianjun & Wu, Xia & Song, Zeyu, 2022. "Governance in mining enterprises: An effective way to promote the intensification of resources—Taking coal resources as an example," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(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. A. Mateus & C. Lopes & L. Martins & J. Carvalho, 2017. "Towards a multi-dimensional methodology supporting a safeguarding decision on the future access to mineral resources," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 30(3), pages 229-255, October.
    2. Radwanek-Bąk, Barbara & Sobczyk, Wiktoria & Sobczyk, Eugeniusz J., 2020. "Support for multiple criteria decisions for mineral deposits valorization and protection," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    3. Linda Wårell, 2021. "Mineral Deposits Safeguarding and Land Use Planning—The Importance of Creating Shared Value," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Edyta Sermet & Marek Nieć, 2021. "Not Mining Sterilization of Explored Mineral Resources. The Example of Native Sulfur Deposits in Poland Case History," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-12, March.
    5. Diana Bobikova & Zofia Kuzevicova & Stefan Kuzevic & Ibrahim Alkhalaf, 2022. "Proposal of a New Approach for Protected Deposit Area Registration in Public Administration Information Systems—A Case Study from Slovakia," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-22, November.
    6. Juliana Segura-Salazar & Luís Marcelo Tavares, 2018. "Sustainability in the Minerals Industry: Seeking a Consensus on Its Meaning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-38, May.
    7. Carvalho, Jorge & Galos, Krzysztof & Kot-Niewiadomska, Alicja & Gugerell, Katharina & Raaness, Agnes & Lisboa, Vitor, 2021. "A look at European practices for identifying mineral resources that deserve to be safeguarded in land-use planning," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    8. Cheng-Yu Yu, 2018. "An Application of Sustainable Development in Indigenous People’s Revival: The History of an Indigenous Tribe’s Struggle in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    9. Stefanija BIROVA, 2017. "Sustainability Assesment Methods: An Exploratory Study," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 11(1), pages 1030-1037, November.
    10. Lucia Mancini & Philip Nuss, 2020. "Responsible Materials Management for a Resource-Efficient and Low-Carbon Society," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-14, June.
    11. Gallopín, Gilberto, 2018. "Back to the future," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 318-324.
    12. Ingrid Boas & Frank Biermann & Norichika Kanie, 2016. "Cross-sectoral strategies in global sustainability governance: towards a nexus approach," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 449-464, June.
    13. Nikos Chatzistamoulou & Phoebe Koundouri, 2020. "The Economics of Sustainable Development," DEOS Working Papers 2005, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    14. Wiśniewska Anna Maria, 2021. "Sustainable development and management of medical tourism companies in Poland," International Journal of Management and Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of World Economy, vol. 57(2), pages 151-160, June.
    15. Oier Imaz & Andoni Eizagirre, 2020. "Responsible Innovation for Sustainable Development Goals in Business: An Agenda for Cooperative Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-20, August.
    16. Simon Ling & Adam Landon & Michael Tarrant & Donald Rubin, 2021. "The Influence of Instructional Delivery Modality on Sustainability Literacy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-15, September.
    17. Hope Osayantin Aifuwa, 2020. "Sustainability Reporting And Firm Performance In Developing Climes: A Review Of Literature," Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting, Uniwersytet Mikolaja Kopernika, vol. 9(1), pages 9-29.
    18. Mariusz Izdebski & Marianna Jacyna, 2021. "An Efficient Hybrid Algorithm for Energy Expenditure Estimation for Electric Vehicles in Urban Service Enterprises," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-23, April.
    19. Karen Holm Olsen & Fatemeh Bakhtiari & Virender Kumar Duggal & Jørge Villy Fenhann, 2019. "Sustainability labelling as a tool for reporting the sustainable development impacts of climate actions relevant to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 225-251, April.

    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:lauspo:v:79:y:2018:i:c:p:263-284. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.