This paper provides an overview of the environmental impact of mining on viable future land use and underlines the imperative of improved environmental management and closure planning. It argues that pollution prevention, through planning for closure, can lead to cost‐effective strategies for sustainable minerals development and viable future land use. This seems to be most true for greenfield sites since, generally, the earlier closure planning and pollution prevention is built into a project, the more cost‐effective and environmentally benign closure will be. Further, for greenfield sites, pollution prevention techniques can be employed from the outset, at the stages of exploration and mine development, and then monitored and improved through the operation stage to closure, and can be kept in place to manage future land use. The paper discusses how global changes in the industry, following the liberalisation of investment regimes, and mergers and strategic alliances between key firms, has, by virtue of the diffusion of new technology, led to further opportunities to prevent pollution and optimise future land use through planning for closure from the outset. The objectives and components of closure plans are also reviewed as the paper draws on case studies to highlight some of the possible constraints and challenges to pollution prevention that may be faced at the level of both public policy and corporate strategy. The article concludes by suggesting a forward‐looking approach to integrated environmental management and viable future land‐use planning based on a dynamic model for environmental management.

The objective of this article is to illustrate the use of a framework to design a set of tools to assess progress towards improved well‐being in a mining region. The framework uses an ecosystem approach to assess human well‐being and is sensitive to the needs, concerns, and interests of at least the major stakeholders: government, company and community. The framework seeks to be useful to stakeholders and to be of policy relevance. The article presents the proposed framework with illustrations from a case study in Goa, India. Mining in Goa has had both positive and negative impacts on the well‐being of local people. These impacts vary depending on the age of mining. In areas where mining is well established and active, the economic impacts are more positive. The social and environmental impacts are more negative in the regions where mining is new or is closing down. These characteristics generate their own set of issues of concern to stakeholders. Based on these issues, three types of tools to assess current well‐being and progress towards improved well‐being are suggested: (i) Indicators based on identified issues using the Pressure‐State‐Response (PSR) framework; (ii) A quality of life instrument, which can be developed either as an aggregate measure of well‐being or in a more limited way to capture the satisfaction of the community with their living conditions; (iii) A regional income accounting framework to assess whether the mining region is able to continue functioning into the indefinite future without being forced into a decline through the degradation of its key natural, social, and human assets and resources. The article suggests that if these tools are used regularly, an information system will emerge that will, over time, provide markers of what mining is doing to the region and to the local communities.

No abstract

No abstract

This article is based on a larger case study that investigated the role of tourist induced and other population movements in causing coastal ecosystem change in Goa, India. It focuses especially upon agro-ecosystems locally known as khazan lands, and sand dunes, and how they are transformed to accommodate the needs of tourists and tourism. The effects of different forms of tourism upon land cover and land-use change is assessed. The research findings suggest that it is not population movements alone that cause ecosystem changes, but the changes in relations between people and ecosystems. This means that in some cases land cover has not changed as much as land use, and in other cases land cover has changed dramatically. Intermediary influences upon land use and land-cover change are also legal, political, and economic factors, particularly changes in property rights.