Governing Complexity. Theories, Perspectives and Methodology for the Study of Sustainable Development and Mining in the Arctic

Chapter
Part of the Springer Polar Sciences book series (SPPS)

Abstract

This chapter seek to frame different relevant theoretical concepts that are currently used to shed light on the question of sustainable development as it relates to mining. It elaborates upon multiple conceptual and theoretical frameworks that are employed throughout the chapters in this volume, and the relationships between them. Our analysis of mining within a sustainable development framework requires a complex set of theoretical understandings and concepts. These are discussed here in order to provide a foundation for the analytical chapters that follow. The basic concepts analysed in this volume are ‘sustainability in mining’, ‘sacrifice zones’ and ‘legitimacy’. Implicit in our analysis is the understanding that mining communities and mining projects need to deal with the complex understanding and valuation of landscapes and nature. This complexity can, of course, be understood by applying a number of different theories, of which we will present only a few. Some common threads that emerge from these different theoretical approaches include the importance of effective communication, the need to incorporate, acknowledge and understand diverse forms of knowledge, and the fact that legitimacy can be established in many different ways. This chapter, then, explores some of these perspectives.

Keywords

Sustainable development Sacrifice zones Legitimacy Mining Valuation of landscapes Knowledge production 

References

  1. Aase, T. H., & Fossåskaret, E. (2010). Skapte virkeligheter -om produksjon og tolking av kvalitative data. Oslo: Oslo Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  2. Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related. Progress in Human Geography, 24, 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antrop, M. (2005). Why landscapes of the past are important for the future in. Landscape and Urban Planning, 70(2005), 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arctic Council. (1996). Ottawa declaration – declaration on the establishment of the arctic council, Ottawa, Canada. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0025-326X(13)00291-9/h0005
  5. Asdal, K. (2005). Returning the kingdom to the king: A post-constructivist response to the critique of positivism. Acta Sociologica, 48(3), 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berg, B. L. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  7. Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (1998). Linking social and ecological systems (pp. 1–25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bjørst, L.-R. (2016). Saving or destroying the local community? Conflicting spatial storylines in the Greenlandic debate on uranium. The Extractive Industries and Society, 3(1), 34–40Google Scholar
  9. Bourdieu, P. (1983). Forms of capital. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brox, O. (1984). Nord-Norge: Fra allmenning til koloni, Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  11. Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, United Nations on Environment and Development, United Nations.Google Scholar
  12. Bruner, J. (1987). Life as a narrative. Social Research, 54, 12–32.Google Scholar
  13. Buchanan, A. (2002). Political legitimacy and democracy. Ethics, 112(4), 689–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buchanan, A. E. (2007). Justice, legitimacy, and self-determination: moral foundations for international law. Oxford: University Press on Demand.Google Scholar
  15. Bullard, R. D., & Johnson, G. S. (2000). Environmentalism and public policy: Environmental justice: Grassroots activism and its impact on public policy decision making. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 555–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Buxton, A. (2014). Governments, large- and small-scale mining: Beginning a dialogue. Report back from Indaba Mining Conference. London: IIED.Google Scholar
  17. Campbell, S. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, Just cities?: Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), 296–312Google Scholar
  18. Carrington, K., & Pereira, M. (2011). Assessing the social impacts of the resources boom on rural communities. Rural Society, 21(1), 2–20.Google Scholar
  19. Cashore, B. (2002). Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: how non-state market-driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule-making authority. Governance, 15(4), 503–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clarke, W. C., et al. (2002). Information and influence: How institutions mediate the impact of scientific assessments on global environmental affairs. Faculty research working paper series, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 02-044.Google Scholar
  21. Connelly, S. (2007). Mapping sustainable development as a contested concept. Local Environment, 12(3), 259–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dale, B. (2012). Securing a contingent future: how threats, risks and identity matter in the debate over petroleum development in Lofoten, Norway. Norway: Univeristy of TromsoeGoogle Scholar
  23. Dale, B. (2016). Governing resources, governing mentalities: The case of petroleum in the lofoten seas. Journal of Extractive Industries and Society, 3, 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Daniels, S., & Endfield, G. H. (2009). Narratives of climate change: Introduction. Journal of Historical Geography, 35(2), 215–222. doi: 10.1016/j.jhg.2008.09.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Davis, M. (1993). Davis, Mike. Dead West: Ecocide in Marlboro Country. New Left Review, 200, 49–73.Google Scholar
  26. Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality. Power and rule in modern society (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Endres, D. (2012). Sacred land or national sacrifice zone: The role of values in the Yucca Mountain participation process. Environmental Communication, 6(3), 328–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Foucault, M., & Gordon, C. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. Brighton: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  29. Fox, J. (1999). Mountaintop removal in West Virginia: An environmental sacrifice zone. Organization & Environment, 12(2), 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hannigan, J. (2006). Environmental sociology. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
  31. Hedges, C., & Sacco, J. (2012). In C. Hedges & J. Sacco (Eds.), Days of destruction, days of revolt. New York: Nation Books.Google Scholar
  32. Held, D. (1987). Models of democracy (p. 238). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hogl, K., Kvarda, E., Nordbeck, R., et al. (2012). Effectiveness and legitimacy of environmental governance -synposis and key insights. In K. Hogl, E. Kvarda, R. Nordbeck, & M. Pregernig (Eds.), Environmental governance: The challenge of legitimacy and effectiveness. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Google Scholar
  34. Hough, P. (2013). International politics of the arctic: Coming in from the cold. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Hovelsrud, G., et al. (2011). Arctic societies, cultures, and peoples in a changing cryosphere. Ambio, 40(1), 100–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. ICLEI (1996). The local agenda 21 planning guide (Toronto).Google Scholar
  37. IIED (2002). Breaking new ground: Mining, minerals and sustainable development from the project Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development IIED 2002.Google Scholar
  38. Ingold, T. (1993). The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeology, 25(2), 152–174. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/124811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ingold, T.. 2011(2000). The temporality of landscapes. In T. Ingold (Ed.), The perception of the environment (pp. 189–208). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jentoft, S. (2000). Legitimacy and disappointment in Fishery policy Marine Policy 24/2000Google Scholar
  41. Kirsch, S. (1997). Watching the bombs go off: Photography, nuclear landscapes, and spectator democracy. Antipode, 29(3), 227–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kirsch, S. (2010). Sustainable mining. Dialectical Anthropology, 34(1), 87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kuletz, V. (1998). The tainted desert: Environmental ruin in the American West. Routledge: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  44. Leach, M., Scoones, I., & Stirling, A. (2010). Dynamic sustainabilities: Technology, environment, social justice. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  45. Lerner, S. (2010). Sacrifice zones: The front lines of toxic chemical exposure in the United States. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. McIntosh, R. J., et al. (2000). The way the wind blows: Climate, history, and human action. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Murphy, K. (2012). The social pillar of sustainable development: A literature review and framework for policy analysis. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 8(1), 15–29. Published online Mar 13, 2012.Google Scholar
  48. Parekh, B. (2008). A new politics of identity: Political principles for an interdependent world. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Paschen, J. A., & Ison, R. (2014). Narrative research in climate change adaptation – Exploring a complementary paradigm for research and governance. Research Policy, 43(6), 1083–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Peter, F. (2010). Political legitimacy. The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL= http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/legitimacy/. 2016.10.03.
  51. Prno, J. (2013). An analysis of factors leading to the establishment of a social licence to operate in the mining industry. Resources Policy, 38(4), 577–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Robertson, I., & Richards, P. (Eds.). (2003). Studying cultural landscapes. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  53. Salmi, O. (2008). Drivers for adopting environmental management systems in the post-Soviet mining industry. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 8(1), 51–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scott, R. R. (2010). Removing mountains: Extracting nature and identity in the Appalachian coalfields. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  55. Skorstad, B. (2005). Miljø, kunnskap og moral. In Tre casestudiar av miljøomsyn. Tromsoe: Universitetet i Tromsoe.Google Scholar
  56. Smelror, M. (2016). Preface. In Boyd et al (Eds.), Mineral resources in the arctic geological survey of Norway.Google Scholar
  57. Stake, R. E. (2013). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  58. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.Google Scholar
  59. Turner, B. L., et al. (2003). Illustrating the coupled human–environment system for vulnerability analysis: Three case studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14), 8080–8085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. UN. (2001). Information for decision-making and participation E/CN.17/2001/19. 9th session of the Commission on Sustainable Development: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=2002&nr=51&menu=35 (12.11.2016).
  61. Wilson, D. C. (2010). Paradoxes of transparency -science and the ecosystem approach to fisheries management in Europe (p. 301). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Wilson, E. (2016). What is the social licence to operate? Local perceptions of oil and gas projects in Russia’s Komi Republic and Sakhalin Island. The Extractive Industries and Society, Elsevier, 3(1), 73–81.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Social ScienceNord UniversityBodøNorway
  2. 2.Nordland Research InstituteBodøNorway

Personalised recommendations