IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v10y2021i1p6-d480968.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accessibility of Selected Key Non-Metallic Mineral Deposits in the Environmental and Social Context in Poland

Author

Listed:
  • Urszula Kaźmierczak

    (Faculty of Geoengineering, Mining and Geology, Wrocław University of Science and Technology, Wybrzeże Wyspiańskiego 27, 50370 Wrocław, Poland)

  • Justyna Górniak-Zimroz

    (Faculty of Geoengineering, Mining and Geology, Wrocław University of Science and Technology, Wybrzeże Wyspiańskiego 27, 50370 Wrocław, Poland)

Abstract

The increase in demand for mineral resources, the depletion of the resources (deposits) and numerous environmental and social limitations concerning their utilization led to research on the assessment of environmental and the social availability of compact raw material deposits classified as key raw materials. The methodology of the research is based on the proposed environmental and social assessment procedure for the availability of deposits, in which, based on the constraints resulting from legal, environmental and planning conditions, four deposit availability classes have been determined: class I—very well accessible deposit, class II—well accessible deposit, class III—accessible deposit and class IV—inaccessible deposit. Ultimately, seven variables influencing the availability of the deposit were selected for the assessment, i.e., forms of nature protection, forests with protective functions, zones of indirect protection of groundwater and surface water intakes, main groundwater reservoirs, surface water reservoirs, rivers, streams and canals, buildings and infrastructure and road and railway. The research was carried out for 244 deposits located in Poland (Central Europe) with total resources of over 7.6 billion tons. The availability of deposits was analyzed for two variants. The first one included all the variables. The second variant, on the other hand, excluded railway infrastructure due to the fact that 90% of the compact raw materials transport is carried out by trucks. Finally, in variant I of the assessment, three classes of deposit availability were obtained: class IV inaccessible deposits (146 deposits), class III available deposits (93 deposits), and class II well-accessible deposits (5 deposits). In variant II four classes of deposit availability were obtained: class IV inaccessible deposits (145 deposits), class III available deposits (68 deposits), class II well-accessible deposits (28 deposits) and class I deposits very easily accessible (3 deposits).

Suggested Citation

  • Urszula Kaźmierczak & Justyna Górniak-Zimroz, 2021. "Accessibility of Selected Key Non-Metallic Mineral Deposits in the Environmental and Social Context in Poland," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-23, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:10:y:2021:i:1:p:6-:d:480968
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/10/1/6/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/10/1/6/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. Tiess, Guenter, 2010. "Minerals policy in Europe: Some recent developments," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 190-198, 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. 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.
    2. Danny Zhao‐Xiang Huang, 2022. "An integrated theory of the firm approach to environmental, social and governance performance," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(S1), pages 1567-1598, April.
    3. Deanna Kemp & John R. Owen, 2022. "Corporate social irresponsibility, hostile organisations and global resource extraction," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 1816-1824, September.
    4. Pauli Lappi & Markku Ollikainen, 2019. "Optimal Environmental Policy for a Mine Under Polluting Waste Rocks and Stock Pollution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(1), pages 133-158, May.
    5. Jiang, Meihui & An, Haizhong & Guan, Qing & Sun, Xiaoqi, 2018. "Global embodied mineral flow between industrial sectors: A network perspective," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 192-201.
    6. Measham, Thomas G. & Zhang, Airong, 2019. "Social licence, gender and mining: Moral conviction and perceived economic importance," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 363-368.
    7. Daniel Constantin Diaconu & Paschalis D. Koutalakis & Georgios T. Gkiatas & Gabriel Vasile Dascalu & George N. Zaimes, 2023. "River Sand and Gravel Mining Monitoring Using Remote Sensing and UAVs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-17, January.
    8. Mercer-Mapstone, Lucy & Rifkin, Will & Moffat, Kieren & Louis, Winnifred, 2017. "Conceptualising the role of dialogue in social licence to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 137-146.
    9. Leena, Suopajärvi & Karina, Umander & Jungsberg, Leneisja, 2019. "Social license to operate in the frame of social capital exploring local acceptance of mining in two rural municipalities in the European North," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    10. Wright, Susan & Bice, Sara, 2017. "Beyond social capital: A strategic action fields approach to social licence to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 284-295.
    11. Saenz, Cesar, 2021. "The relationship between corporate social responsibility and the social licence to operate: A case study in Peru," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    12. Martin Bohle & Cornelia E. Nauen & Eduardo Marone, 2019. "Ethics to Intersect Civic Participation and Formal Guidance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, February.
    13. Yıldız, Taşkın Deniz & Kural, Orhan, 2020. "The effects of the mining operation activities permit process on the mining sector in Turkey," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    14. Svobodova, Kamila & Yellishetty, Mohan & Vojar, Jiri, 2019. "Coal mining in Australia: Understanding stakeholder knowledge of mining and mine rehabilitation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 421-430.
    15. Tsalis, Thomas A. & Nikolaou, Ioannis E. & Konstantakopoulou, Fotini & Zhang, Ying & Evangelinos, Konstantinos I., 2020. "Evaluating the corporate environmental profile by analyzing corporate social responsibility reports," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 63-75.
    16. Radebe, Nomkhosi & Chipangamate, Nelson, 2024. "Mining industry risks, and future critical minerals and metals supply chain resilience in emerging markets," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    17. Cesar Saenz, 2019. "Creating shared value using materiality analysis: Strategies from the mining industry," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1351-1360, November.
    18. Alberto Diantini & Salvatore Eugenio Pappalardo & Tim Edwards Powers & Daniele Codato & Giuseppe Della Fera & Marco Heredia-R & Francesco Facchinelli & Edoardo Crescini & Massimo De Marchi, 2020. "Is this a Real Choice? Critical Exploration of the Social License to Operate in the Oil Extraction Context of the Ecuadorian Amazon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-24, October.
    19. Edwards, Peter & Stahlmann-Brown, Philip & Thomas, Simon, 2020. "Pernicious pests and public perceptions: Wilding conifers in Aotearoa New Zealand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    20. Heydari, Mehrnoosh & Osanloo, Morteza & Başçetin, Ataç, 2023. "Developing a new social impact assessment model for deep open-pit mines," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).

    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:gam:jresou:v:10:y:2021:i:1:p:6-:d:480968. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.