Abstract
The ecosystem services (ES) approach offers an integrated perspective of social-ecological systems, suitable for holistic assessments of mining impacts. Yet for ES models to be policy-relevant, methodological consensus in mining contexts is needed. We review articles assessing ES in mining areas focusing on freshwater components and policy support potential. Twenty-six articles were analysed concerning (i) methodological complexity (data types, number of parameters, processes and ecosystem–human integration level) and (ii) potential applicability for policy development (communication of uncertainties, scenario simulation, stakeholder participation and management recommendations). Articles illustrate mining impacts on ES through valuation exercises mostly. However, the lack of ground- and surface-water measurements, as well as insufficient representation of the connectivity among soil, water and humans, leave room for improvements. Inclusion of mining-specific environmental stressors models, increasing resolution of topographies, determination of baseline ES patterns and inclusion of multi-stakeholder perspectives are advantageous for policy support. We argue that achieving more holistic assessments exhorts practitioners to aim for high social-ecological connectivity using mechanistic models where possible and using inductive methods only where necessary. Due to data constraints, cause–effect networks might be the most feasible and best solution. Thus, a policy-oriented framework is proposed, in which data science is directed to environmental modelling for analysis of mining impacts on water ES.
Highlights
Unsustainable patterns of anthropogenic water use are a major concern due to increasing population growth and demand for goods and services [1,2,3]
A quantitative overview of results for our reviewing criteria (Table 1) in selected articles can be found in Appendix A, Table A1 and Table A2
Onset assumptions for addressing a case study, as well as the choice of parameters and processes to be modelled, can bias the outcome of an ES assessment (ESA) [58]. These methodological choices are critical for capturing particularities from the mining context itself, either in terms of extension, severity and occurrence of potential impacts, as well as for the unique social dimensions and corporate responsibility [59] inherent to a case study
Summary
Unsustainable patterns of anthropogenic water use are a major concern due to increasing population growth and demand for goods and services [1,2,3]. The allocation of natural resources for extractive purposes, like metallic, non-metallic or energy mineral mining, results in considerable shifts in the benefit flow from ecosystems to humans. The requirements of large quantities of freshwater resources and surfaces for inland mineral mining results in a considerable threat to biota [4,5,6,7]. Mining impacts on water quality are demonstrated. Toxicity (e.g., mercury, cyanide, heavy metals, arsenic), eutrophication, pH destabilization, aquatic community disturbance and riparian habitat fragmentation are commonly reported mining impacts on freshwater habitats [4,9,10,11].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
