IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v9y2020i6p73-d369587.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Recultivation of Post-Mining Disturbed Land: Review of Content and Comparative Law and Feasibility Study

Author

Listed:
  • Margarita Ignatyeva

    (Research Laboratory of Disturbed Lands’ and Technogenic Objects’ Reclamation, Ural State Mining University, 620144 Yekaterinburg, Russia
    Center for Nature Management and Geoecology, Institute of Economics, The Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 620014 Yekaterinburg, Russia)

  • Vera Yurak

    (Research Laboratory of Disturbed Lands’ and Technogenic Objects’ Reclamation, Ural State Mining University, 620144 Yekaterinburg, Russia
    Center for Nature Management and Geoecology, Institute of Economics, The Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 620014 Yekaterinburg, Russia)

  • Natalia Pustokhina

    (Department of Economics and Management, Ural State Mining University, 620144 Yekaterinburg, Russia)

Abstract

The article considers the concept of the circular economy as an important tool for achieving sustainable development, which relates to the preservation of renewable resources’ mass through the renewal of withdrawn resources and the restoration of disturbed ones. It is directly linked to remedial land treatment in post-mining disturbed land. However, after numerous studies, the conceptual apparatus of recultivation remains unspecified. Moreover, there is a gap regarding the trends of evolutionary changes in studies of legislation and feasibility on the subject of recultivation. Employing comparative law as a tool, the aim of the study is to develop a consistent approach based on circular economy by establishing the stages of legal support for recultivation and identifying the content of all these stages regarding economic efficiency. Currently, the environmental priorities of the economy are triggering the usage of the ecosystem approach for assessing the ecological result of recultivation. Therefore, the core of the paper is the development of a consistent circular economy approach by (1) clarifying the concept of recultivation, (2) identifying the stages of the development of a legal framework for recultivation and (3) revealing evolutionary changes in feasibility studies on recultivation. The authors prove that recultivation should be considered from the perspective of geoaesthetics, which implies a harmonious incorporation of the recultivated landscape into the environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Margarita Ignatyeva & Vera Yurak & Natalia Pustokhina, 2020. "Recultivation of Post-Mining Disturbed Land: Review of Content and Comparative Law and Feasibility Study," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-17, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:9:y:2020:i:6:p:73-:d:369587
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/9/6/73/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/9/6/73/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hansen, LeRoy, 2007. "Conservation Reserve Program: Environmental Benefits Update," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 267-280, October.
    2. Tatarkin, A. I. & Balashenko, V. V. & Loginov, V. G. & Ignatyeva, M. N., 2016. "Methodological Toolkit for Assessing the Investment Attractiveness of Renewable Resources in Northern and Arctic Territories," R-Economy, Ural Federal University, Graduate School of Economics and Management, vol. 2(3), pages 270-278.
    3. Rosa, Josianne Claudia Sales & Geneletti, Davide & Morrison-Saunders, Angus & Sánchez, Luis Enrique & Hughes, Michael, 2020. "To what extent can mine rehabilitation restore recreational use of forest land? Learning from 50 years of practice in southwest Australia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    4. Rodríguez-Entrena, Macario & Espinosa-Goded, María & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús, 2014. "The role of ancillary benefits on the value of agricultural soils carbon sequestration programmes: Evidence from a latent class approach to Andalusian olive groves," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 63-73.
    5. Marzena Smol & Paulina Marcinek & Joanna Duda & Dominika Szołdrowska, 2020. "Importance of Sustainable Mineral Resource Management in Implementing the Circular Economy (CE) Model and the European Green Deal Strategy," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-21, May.
    6. Irina Polyanskaya & Vera Yurak, 2017. "Institutional Assessment of Environmentally Oriented Subsoil Use," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(2), pages 355-368.
    7. Irina Polyanskaya & Vera Yurak, 2013. "Institutions, mechanisms and methods of innovative subsurface resources management," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(1), pages 205-215.
    8. Aleksandr Tatarkin & Valeriy Balashenko & Margarita Ignatyeva & Vladimir Loginov, 2016. "Methodological Tools for Assessing the Investment Attractiveness of Renewable Resources in Northern and Arctic Territories," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(3), pages 627-637.
    9. Ninan, K.N. & Inoue, Makoto, 2013. "Valuing forest ecosystem services: Case study of a forest reserve in Japan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 78-87.
    10. Hamed Daly-Hassen & Pere Riera & Robert Mavsar & Amira Gammoudi & Dolores Garcia, 2017. "Valuing trade-offs between local forest uses and environmental services in Tunisia," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(3), pages 268-282, July.
    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. Aneta Kowalska & Bal Ram Singh & Anna Grobelak, 2022. "Carbon Footprint for Post-Mining Soils: The Dynamic of Net CO 2 Fluxes and SOC Sequestration at Different Soil Remediation Stages under Reforestation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-23, December.
    2. Oleg Bazaluk & Oleh Anisimov & Pavlo Saik & Vasyl Lozynskyi & Oleksandr Akimov & Leonid Hrytsenko, 2023. "Determining the Safe Distance for Mining Equipment Operation When Forming an Internal Dump in a Deep Open Pit," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, 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. Vera V. Yurak & Margarita N. Ignatyeva & Aleksey V. Dushin, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services in a region: A review of the international experience," Journal of New Economy, Ural State University of Economics, vol. 21(4), pages 79-103, December.
    2. Margarita Ignatyeva & Vera Yurak & Oksana Logvinenko, 2020. "A New Look at the Natural Capital Concept: Approaches, Structure, and Evaluation Procedure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-21, November.
    3. Kangas, Johanna & Ollikainen, Markku, 2022. "A PES scheme promoting forest biodiversity and carbon sequestration," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    4. Marzena Smol, 2020. "Inventory of Wastes Generated in Polish Sewage Sludge Incineration Plants and Their Possible Circular Management Directions," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-24, July.
    5. Stephen P. Holland & Jonathan E. Hughes & Christopher R. Knittel & Nathan C. Parker, 2013. "Unintended Consequences of Transportation Carbon Policies: Land-Use, Emissions, and Innovation," NBER Working Papers 19636, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Vladimir Loginov & Margarita Ignatyeva & Valeriy Balashenko, 2017. "Harm to the Resources of Traditional Nature Management and Its Economic Evaluation," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(2), pages 396-409.
    7. Christina G. Siontorou, 2023. "Fair Development Transition of Lignite Areas: Key Challenges and Sustainability Prospects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-14, August.
    8. Yu, Zhenning & She, Shuoqi & Xia, Chuyu & Luo, Jiaojiao, 2023. "How to solve the dilemma of China’s land fallow policy: Application of voluntary bidding mode in the Yangtze River Delta of China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    9. Glauber, Joseph W. & Effland, Anne, 2016. "United States agricultural policy: Its evolution and impact:," IFPRI discussion papers 1543, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    10. Jens Abildtrup & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Suzanne Elizabeth Vedel & Udo Mantau & Robert Mavsar & Davide Pettenella & Irina Prokofieva & Florian Schubert & Anne Stenger & Elsa Varela & Enrico Vidale & , 2024. "Preferences for climate change policies: the role of co-benefits," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 110-128, January.
    11. Richard Yao & David Palmer & Barbara Hock & Duncan Harrison & Tim Payn & Juan Monge, 2019. "Forest Investment Framework as a Support Tool for the Sustainable Management of Planted Forests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-22, June.
    12. Kateryna Redko & Olena Borychenko & Anatolii Cherniavskyi & Volodymyr Saienko & Serhii Dudnikov, 2023. "Comparative Analysis of Innovative Development Strategies of Fuel and Energy Complex of Ukraine and the EU Countries: International Experience," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 13(2), pages 301-308, March.
    13. Johnson, Kris A. & Dalzell, Brent J. & Donahue, Marie & Gourevitch, Jesse & Johnson, Dennis L. & Karlovits, Greg S. & Keeler, Bonnie & Smith, Jason T., 2016. "Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands provide ecosystem service benefits that exceed land rental payment costs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 175-185.
    14. Marcos-Martinez, Raymundo & Bryan, Brett A. & Schwabe, Kurt A. & Connor, Jeffery D. & Law, Elizabeth A. & Nolan, Martin & Sánchez, José J., 2019. "Projected social costs of CO2 emissions from forest losses far exceed the sequestration benefits of forest gains under global change," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Alcon, Francisco & Zabala, José A. & Martínez-García, Victor & Albaladejo, José A. & López-Becerra, Erasmo I. & de-Miguel, María D. & Martínez-Paz, José M., 2022. "The social wellbeing of irrigation water. A demand-side integrated valuation in a Mediterranean agroecosystem," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).
    16. Ewa Lewicka & Katarzyna Guzik & Krzysztof Galos, 2021. "On the Possibilities of Critical Raw Materials Production from the EU’s Primary Sources," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    17. Assel Sopykhanova & Almkhan Maytanov & Alla Kiseleva & Roza Zhamiyeva, 2023. "Problems of Legal Regulation and State Policy Measures Related to Nature Management in the Framework of Achieving the SDGs: Examples from Russia and Kazakhstan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-22, January.
    18. Rosenberg, Andrew B. & Pratt, Bryan & Arnold, David, 2022. "Land Use Impacts of the Conservation Reserve Program: An Analysis of Rejected CRP Offers," 2023 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 6-8, 2023, New Orleans, Louisiana 316533, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Jaina, Avinash & Chandrab, Girish & Nautiyalb, Raman, 2017. "Valuating intangible benefits from afforested areas: A case study in India," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 17(01), June.
    20. Divinsky, Itai & Becker, Nir & Bar (Kutiel), Pua, 2017. "Ecosystem service tradeoff between grazing intensity and other services - A case study in Karei-Deshe experimental cattle range in northern Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 16-27.

    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:9:y:2020:i:6:p:73-:d:369587. 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.