Rare earth at Bearlodge: anthropocentric and biocentric perspectives of mining development in a multiple use landscape

Jeffrey Jenkins ()
Additional contact information
Jeffrey Jenkins: University of California, Merced

Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2017, vol. 7, issue 2, No 2, 189-199

Abstract: Abstract Multiple use livelihoods and recreational activities provide important economic opportunities for communities throughout the American west, especially in rural areas where public lands are the primary income generator. Federal lands also provide incentives for mining development as the “highest and best use” of the land. This tension between civil society, the mining corporation, and the state as dual regulator/facilitator of natural resource development is most apparent during the public comment period of the environmental assessment process. Such is the case with the Bearlodge mine in the Black Hills National Forest of Wyoming, which has the potential to be the only domestic producer of critical rare earth elements. Therefore, I ask: How do perspectives about control of and access to common property resources and the role of humans as part or separate from an ecological system converge or diverge between community, state, and market stakeholders? To answer this, a Q method survey was carried out from groups representative of the different economic and environmental perspectives related to mining development: environmentalists, the mining/energy sector, state/federal regulators, foresters, local land holders, and recreationalists. Results show that stakeholders fall into two categories: anthropocentrists who desire economic development from the mine for human benefit, even given the potential for environmental harm and curtailed access to multiple use activities; and biocentrists who continue to push for a no development alternative where nature is preserved for nature’s sake and existing livelihoods that help to maintain an already altered environment are able to remain and sustain rural economies.

Keywords: Biocentric; Anthropocentric; Extractive industries; Land use conflict; Environmental assessment; Q-method (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13412-016-0412-7 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:7:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s13412-016-0412-7

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/13412

DOI: 10.1007/s13412-016-0412-7

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences is currently edited by Walter A. Rosenbaum

More articles in Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences from Springer, Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().