IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v97y2020ics0264837719304879.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of the private land acquisition process and costs on mining enterprises before mining operation activities in Turkey

Author

Listed:
  • Yıldız, Taşkın Deniz

Abstract

According to the mining legislation in Turkey, different permits must be obtained from the authorized institutions or to reach an agreement with a private landowner according to whether there is private or public land for mining. If the landowner and the mining investor do not agree, the expropriation is conducted if the public interest is observed in the mining operation. There is no doubt that the rights of landowners should be adequately ensured by legislation. However, there are cases where land ownership problems cannot be solved in areas that overlap with mining areas and are subject to private ownership. The expropriation permit process may sometimes last 1.5–2 years. Therefore, mining enterprises are unable to start production activities and risk losing their investments. Especially for the reasons related to private landowners and experts, private land acquisition/expropriation costs for mining activities are quite high compared with the market.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:97:y:2020:i:c:s0264837719304879
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104784
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837719304879
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104784?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. Huang, Xia & Faysse, Nicolas & Ren, Xiaodong, 2017. "A multi-stakeholder platform involving a mining company and neighbouring villages in China: Back to development issues," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 243-250.
    2. Jeffrey Bury, 2005. "Mining Mountains: Neoliberalism, Land Tenure, Livelihoods, and the New Peruvian Mining Industry in Cajamarca," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(2), pages 221-239, February.
    3. Laing, Timothy, 2015. "Rights to the forest, REDD+ and elections: Mining in Guyana," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(P2), pages 250-261.
    4. Everingham, Jo-Anne & Rolfe, John & Lechner, Alex Mark & Kinnear, Susan & Akbar, Delwar, 2018. "A proposal for engaging a stakeholder panel in planning post-mining land uses in Australia’s coal-rich tropical savannahs," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 397-406.
    5. Rugadya, Margaret A., 2020. "Land tenure as a cause of tensions and driver of conflict among mining communities in Karamoja, Uganda: Is secure property rights a solution?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Clark, Allen L. & Cook Clark, Jennifer, 1999. "The new reality of mineral development: social and cultural issues in Asia and Pacific nations," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 189-196, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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).
    2. Tiainen, Heidi & Sairinen, Rauno & Novikov, Viktor, 2014. "Mining in the Chatkal Valley in Kyrgyzstan—Challenge of social sustainability," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 80-87.
    3. Matthew Himley, 2014. "Monitoring the Impacts of Extraction: Science and Participation in the Governance of Mining in Peru," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(5), pages 1069-1087, May.
    4. Ronyastra, I Made & Saw, Lip Huat & Low, Foon Siang, 2023. "A review of methods for integrating risk management and multicriteria decision analysis in financial feasibility for post-coal-mining land usage selection," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(PB).
    5. Haslam, Paul Alexander, 2021. "The micro-politics of corporate responsibility: How companies shape protest in communities affected by mining," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    6. Doussoulin, Jean Pierre & Mougenot, Benoit, 2022. "Mapping mining and ecological distribution conflicts in Latin America, a bibliometric analysis," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    7. Mohamed Boly & Pascale Combes Motel & Jean-Louis Combes, 2019. "How much does environment pay for politicians?," Post-Print hal-02314982, HAL.
    8. Gregory, Gillian H., 2021. "Rendering mine closure governable and constraints to inclusive development in the Andean region," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    9. Korah, Prosper Issahaku & Nunbogu, Abraham Marshall & Cobbinah, Patrick Brandful & Akanbang, Bernard Afiik Akanpabadai, 2019. "Analysis of livelihood issues in resettlement mining communities in Ghana," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Boly, Mohamed & Combes, Jean-Louis & Combes Motel, Pascale, 2023. "Does environment pay for politicians?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    11. Hajkowicz, Stefan A. & Heyenga, Sonja & Moffat, Kieren, 2011. "The relationship between mining and socio-economic well being in Australia's regions," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 30-38, March.
    12. Orihuela, José Carlos & Gamarra-Echenique, Victor, 2020. "Fading local effects: boom and bust evidence from a Peruvian gold mine," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 182-203, April.
    13. Bimo Ren & Kangning Xiong & Qi Wang, 2022. "Revitalization mechanism of specialty industries in the karst rocky desertification areas: From a perspective of the actor‐network theory," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 1362-1383, September.
    14. Haikola, Simon & Anshelm, Jonas, 2020. "Evolutionary governance in mining: Boom and bust in peripheral communities in Sweden," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    15. Noel Castree, 2008. "Neoliberalising Nature: The Logics of Deregulation and Reregulation," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 40(1), pages 131-152, January.
    16. Youmanli Ouoba, 2017. "Artisanal versus industrial mining: impacts on poverty in regions of Burkina Faso," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 30(3), pages 181-191, October.
    17. Bice, Sara & Brueckner, Martin & Pforr, Christof, 2017. "Putting social license to operate on the map: A social, actuarial and political risk and licensing model (SAP Model)," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 46-55.
    18. Omar Manky, 2017. "From Towns to Hotels: Changes in Mining Accommodation Regimes and Their Effects on Labour Union Strategies," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 55(2), pages 295-320, June.
    19. Jamaluddin Hos & Siti Kusujiarti & Jumintono & Ambo Upe & Muhammad Arsyad & Hasniah & Firdaus Yuni Dharta & Jemma Natanson, 2022. "Conflict Management in Multiethnic Communities: a Case Study in Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia," Journal of International Migration and Integration, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1963-1985, December.
    20. Sarah A Radcliffe, 2005. "Neoliberalism as We Know it, but not in Conditions of its Own Choosing: A Commentary," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(2), pages 323-329, February.

    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:97:y:2020:i:c:s0264837719304879. 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.