IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v6y2017i1p7-d88705.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Socio-Ecological Approach to GIS Least-Cost Modelling for Regional Mining Infrastructure Planning: A Case Study from South-East Sulawesi, Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Alex M. Lechner

    (School of Environmental and Geographical Sciences, University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus, Semenyih 43500, Malaysia
    Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia)

  • Bernadetta Devi

    (Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia)

  • Ashlee Schleger

    (Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia)

  • Greg Brown

    (School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia
    Natural Resources Management & Environmental Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407, USA)

  • Phill McKenna

    (Centre for Mined Land Rehabilitation, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia)

  • Saleem H. Ali

    (Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia
    Department of Geography, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19702, USA)

  • Shanty Rachmat

    (Research Group of City and Regional Infrastructure System, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung 40132, Indonesia)

  • Muhammad Syukril

    (Bappeda Provinsi Sulawesi Tenggara, Kota Kendari 93873, Indonesia)

  • Paul Rogers

    (Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia)

Abstract

Regional planning approaches to mining infrastructure aim to reduce the conflict associated with mining operations and existing land uses, such as urban areas and biodiversity conservation, as well as the cumulative impacts that occur offsite. In this paper, we describe a method for conducting Geographical Information System (GIS) least-cost path and least-cost corridor analysis for linear mining infrastructure, such as roads. Least-cost path analysis identifies the optimal pathways between two locations as a function of the cost of traveling through different land use/cover types. In a case study from South-East Sulawesi, Indonesia, we identify potential linear networks for road infrastructure connecting mines, smelters, and ports. The method used interview data from government officials to characterise their orientation (perceived importance and positive/negative attitude) toward the social and environmental factors associated with mining infrastructure. A cost-surface was constructed by integrating spatial layers representing the social and environmental factors to identify areas that should be avoided and areas that were compatible with linear infrastructure using the least-cost path analysis. We compared infrastructure scenario outputs from local and national government officials by the degree of spatial overlap and found broad spatial agreement for infrastructure corridors. We conclude by discussing this approach in relation to the wider social-ecological and mine planning literature and how quantitative approaches can reduce the conflict associated with infrastructure planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Alex M. Lechner & Bernadetta Devi & Ashlee Schleger & Greg Brown & Phill McKenna & Saleem H. Ali & Shanty Rachmat & Muhammad Syukril & Paul Rogers, 2017. "A Socio-Ecological Approach to GIS Least-Cost Modelling for Regional Mining Infrastructure Planning: A Case Study from South-East Sulawesi, Indonesia," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-14, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:6:y:2017:i:1:p:7-:d:88705
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/6/1/7/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/6/1/7/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brown, Greg & Fagerholm, Nora, 2015. "Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 119-133.
    2. Polyakov, Maksym & Pannell, David J. & Pandit, Ram & Tapsuwan, Sorada & Park, Geoff, 2013. "Valuing Environmental Assets on Rural Lifestyle Properties," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 159-175, April.
    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. Alex Mark Lechner & John Owen & Michelle Ang & Deanna Kemp, 2019. "Spatially Integrated Social Sciences with Qualitative GIS to Support Impact Assessment in Mining Communities," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, March.
    2. Yupeng Liu & Wei-Qiang Chen & Tao Lin & Lijie Gao, 2019. "How Spatial Analysis Can Help Enhance Material Stocks and Flows Analysis?," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, March.

    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. Ming-Kuang Chung & Dau-Jye Lu & Bor-Wen Tsai & Kuei-Tien Chou, 2019. "Assessing Effectiveness of PPGIS on Protected Areas by Governance Quality: A Case Study of Community-Based Monitoring in Wu-Wei-Kang Wildlife Refuge, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-20, August.
    2. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    3. Kulczyk, Sylwia & Woźniak, Edyta & Derek, Marta, 2018. "Landscape, facilities and visitors: An integrated model of recreational ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 491-501.
    4. Amalia Vaneska Palacio Buendía & Yolanda Pérez-Albert & David Serrano Giné, 2021. "Mapping Landscape Perception: An Assessment with Public Participation Geographic Information Systems and Spatial Analysis Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, June.
    5. Karimi, Azadeh & Yazdandad, Hossein & Fagerholm, Nora, 2020. "Evaluating social perceptions of ecosystem services, biodiversity, and land management: Trade-offs, synergies and implications for landscape planning and management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    6. Schröter, Matthias & Kraemer, Roland & Mantel, Martin & Kabisch, Nadja & Hecker, Susanne & Richter, Anett & Neumeier, Veronika & Bonn, Aletta, 2017. "Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 80-94.
    7. Linjun Yu & Xiaotong Zhang & Feng He & Xiaojun Wang, 2022. "Participatory Historical Village Landscape Analysis Using a Virtual Globe-Based 3D PGIS: Guizhou, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-16, October.
    8. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    9. Costanza, Robert, 2020. "Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services toward the goals of efficiency, fairness, and sustainability," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    10. Yan Sun & Xiaoping Ge & Junna Liu & Yuanyuan Chang & Gang-Jun Liu & Fu Chen, 2021. "Mitigating Spatial Conflict of Land Use for Sustainable Wetlands Landscape in Li-Xia-River Region of Central Jiangsu, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-14, October.
    11. Matthew R. Sloggy & Francisco J. Escobedo & José J. Sánchez, 2022. "The Role of Spatial Information in Peri-Urban Ecosystem Service Valuation and Policy Investment Preferences," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, August.
    12. Winkler, Klara J. & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2016. "More than wine: Cultural ecosystem services in vineyard landscapes in England and California," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 86-98.
    13. Kalinin, Alexey V. & Sims, Katharine R.E. & Meyer, Spencer R. & Thompson, Jonathan R., 2023. "Does land conservation raise property taxes? Evidence from New England cities and towns," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    14. Langemeyer, Johannes & Calcagni, Fulvia & Baró, Francesc, 2018. "Mapping the intangible: Using geolocated social media data to examine landscape aesthetics," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 542-552.
    15. Polyakov, Maksym & Pannell, David J., 2014. "Accounting for private benefits in ecological restoration planning," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 169823, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    17. Lin, Yongyuan & Shui, Wei & Li, Zhipan & Huang, Shan & Wu, Kexin & Sun, Xiaorui & Liang, Jingchen, 2021. "Green space optimization for rural vitality: Insights for planning and policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    18. Van Berkel, Derek B. & Tabrizian, Payam & Dorning, Monica A. & Smart, Lindsey & Newcomb, Doug & Mehaffey, Megan & Neale, Anne & Meentemeyer, Ross K., 2018. "Quantifying the visual-sensory landscape qualities that contribute to cultural ecosystem services using social media and LiDAR," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 326-335.
    19. Schmidt, Katja & Martín-López, Berta & Phillips, Peter M. & Julius, Eike & Makan, Neville & Walz, Ariane, 2019. "Key landscape features in the provision of ecosystem services: Insights for management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 353-366.
    20. Juyi Xia & Ming Cao & Wen Xiao & Yanpeng Li & Gang Fu & Wei Wang & Junsheng Li, 2020. "Integrating Spatial Valuation of Ecosystem Services into Protected Area Management: A Case Study of the Cangshan Nature Reserve in Dali, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-18, November.

    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:6:y:2017:i:1:p:7-:d:88705. 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.