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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ali S (2014) Social and environmental impact of the rare earth industries. Resources 3:123–134. doi:10.3390/resources3010123
Bridge G (2000) The social regulation of resource access and environmental impact: production, nature and contradiction in the US copper industry. Geoforum 31:237–256
Bridge G (2004) Conteste terrain: mining and the environment. Annu Rev Environ Resour 29:205–259. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.28.011503.163434
Brody D (2012) Citizen involvement in environmental bureaucratic decision--making: communicative action in forest service nepa projects. Thesis, University of Washington
Brown SR (1971) The forced-free distinction in q technique. J Educ Meas:283–287
Cairns R, Sallu SM, Goodman S (2014) Questioning calls to consensus in conservation: a Q study of conservation discourses on Galápagos. Environ Conserv 41:13–26
Clagett N (2013) A rare opportunity: Streamlining permitting for rare earth materials within the united states. Journal of Energy and Environmental Law
Clarke J, McCool D (1996) Staking out the terrain: Power and performance among natural resource agencies. SUNY Press
Crist E (2014) Ptolemaic environmentalism. In: Keeping the wild. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 16–30
Cuppen E, Breukers S, Hisschemöller M, Bergsma E (2010) Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands. Ecol Econ 69:579–591
Dietz T, Fitzgerald M, Shwom R (2005) Environmental values—annual review of environmental. Resources 30:335–372
Dizard J (1999) Going wild: hunting, animal rights, and the contested meaning of nature. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst
Doak DF, Bakker VJ, Goldstein BE, Hale B (2014) What is the future of conservation? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 29:77–81. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2013.10.013
Duane T (1998) Shaping the sierra: nature, culture, and conflict in the changing west. University of California Press, Berkeley
DuPuis M, Vandergeest P (1996) Creating the countryside. Temple University Press, Philadelphia
Eyvindson K, Kangas A, Hujala T, Leskinen P (2015) Likert versus Q-approaches in survey methodologies: discrepancies in results with same respondents. Quality & Quantity 49:509–522
Flawn P (1966) Geology and the new conservation movement. Science 151
Geores M (1998) The historic role of the forest community in sustaining the Black Hills National Forest as a complex common property multiple use resource. Mt Res Dev:83–94
Glacken CJ (1973) Traces on the rhodian shore: nature and culture in western thought from ancient times to the end of the eighteenth century. University of California Press, Berkeley
Grabbatin B, Rossi J (2012) Political ecology: nonequilibrium science and nature-society research. Geography Compass 6:275–289
Gruber JS (2011) Perspectives of effective and sustainable community-based natural resource management: an application of Q methodology to forest projects. Conserv Soc 9:159
Huber MT, Emel J (2009) Fixed minerals, scalar politics the weight of scale in conflicts over the ‘1872 mining law’ in the United States. Environment and Planning A 41:371–388
Hunter ML, Redford KH, Lindenmayer DB (2014) The complementary niches of anthropocentric and biocentric conservationists. Conserv Biol 28:641–645. doi:10.1111/cobi.12296
Jenkins J (2011) The reproduction of the Klamath Basin: struggle for water in a changing landscape. Association of Pacific Coast Geographers 73:1–10
Justus J, Colyvan M, Regan H, Maguire L (2009) Buying into conservation: intrinsic versus instrumental value. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24(4):187–191
Kareiva P, Marvier M (2012) What is conservation science? Bioscience 62:962–969. doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.11.5
Kareiva P, Marvier M, Lalasz R (2012) Conservation in the anthropocene: Beyond solitude and fragility
Killingsworth M, Palmer J (2012) The environmental impact statement and the rhetoric of democracy. In: Killingsworth M, Palmer J (eds) Ecospeak: rhetoric and environmental politics in america. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale
Kingsnorth P (2014) Rise of the neo-greens. In: Keeping the wild. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 3–9
Kirsch S (2014) Mining capitalism: the relationship between corporations and their critics. University of California Press, Oakland
Lave R (2012) Neoliberalism and the production of environmental knowledge. Environment and Society: Advances in Research 3:19–38. doi:10.3167/ares.2012.030103
Lave R, Mirowski P, Randalls S (2010) Introduction: STS and neoliberal science. Soc Stud Sci 40:659–675
Lemos MC, Agrawal A (2006) Environmental governance. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:297–325. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.31.042605.135621
Marris E (2011) Rambunctious garden: saving nature in a post-wild world. Bloomsbury, New York
Martin GP (2008) ‘Ordinary people only’: knowledge, representativeness, and the publics of public participation in healthcare. Sociology of health & illness 30:35–54
Marvier M, Kareiva P (2014) The evidence of values underlying ‘new conservation’. Trends in Ecology and Evolution
McCarthy J (2007) Rural geography: globalizing the countryside. Prog Hum Geogr 32:129
Milcu AI, Sherren K, Hanspach J, Abson D, Fischer J (2014) Navigating conflicting landscape aspirations: application of a photo-based Q-method in Transylvania (Central Romania). Land Use Policy 41:408–422
Neff MW (2011) What research should be done and why? Four competing visions among ecologists. Front Ecol Environ 9:462–469
O’Connor J (1998) The second contradiction of capitalism. In: O’Connor J (ed) Natural causes: essays in ecological marxism. Guilford Press, New York
Perrow C (2011) Normal accidents: living with high risk technologies. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Reed MS et al (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manag 90:1933–1949. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001
Robbins P (2000) The practical politics of knowing: state environmental knowledge and local political economy. Econ Geogr 76:126–144
Robbins P (2006) The politics of barstool biology: environmental knowledge and power in greater Northern Yellowstone. Geoforum 37:185–199. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.11.011
Robbins P, Meehan K, Gosnell H, Gilbertz S (2009) Writing the new west: a critical review. Rural Sociol 74:356–382
Rodriguez-Pineros S, Focht W, Lewis DK, Montgomery D (2012) Incorporating values into community-scale sustainable forest management plans: an application of Q methodology. Small-scale forestry 11:167–183
Schmolck P (2014) PQMethod Manual. Retrieved June 15, 2015: http://schmolck.org/qmethod/pqmanual.htm
Shinneman D, Baker W (1997) Nonequilibrium dynamics between catastrophic disturbances and old-growth forests in ponderosa pine landscapes of the Black Hills. Conserv Biol 11:1276–1288
Soule M (2013) The “new conservation”. Conserv Biol 27:895–897. doi:10.1111/cobi.12147
Stephenson W (1935) Technique of factor analysis. Nature
Stephenson W (1952) Some observations on Q technique. Psychol Bull 49:483
Walker P, Fortmann L (2003) Whose landscape? A political ecology of the ‘exurban’ Sierra. Cult Geogr 10:469–491. doi:10.1191/1474474003eu285oa
Webler T, Danielson S, Tuler S (2009) Using Q Method to Reveal Social Perspectives in Environmental Research. Greenfield, MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute
Worster D (1992) Cowboy ecology. Under Western Skies: Nature and History in the American West, pp 34–52
Worster D (1994) Nature’s economy: a history of ecological ideas. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Acknowledgments
The author would like to express gratitude to the following funders for their financial support that allowed for writing time and field-based research: Santa Cruz-Watsonville Inquiry-Based Learning in Environmental Sciences (NSF GK-12 DGE-0947923); The Benjamin and Ruth Hammett Fellowship for Climate Change and Water Issues; The University of California, Santa Cruz Blum Center on Poverty, Social Enterprise, and Participatory Governance; and the University of California, Santa Cruz Department of Environmental Studies. Furthermore, the author notes that the human subject research carried out was approved through IRB Federalwide Assurance #FWA00002797.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jenkins, J. Rare earth at Bearlodge: anthropocentric and biocentric perspectives of mining development in a multiple use landscape. J Environ Stud Sci 7, 189–199 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-016-0412-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-016-0412-7