Mathematical model of sustainability

Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013) 7839–7854

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Mathematic Mathematical al Modelling Modelling j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a te te / a p m

The application of a mathematical model of sustainability to the results of a semi-quantitative Environmental Impact Assessment of two iron ore opencast mines in Iran Jason Phillips Camborne School of Mines, College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, Penryn TR10 9EZ, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received Received 10 April 2012 Received Received in revised form 4 December December 2012 Accepted Accepted 1 March 2013 Available online 16 March 2013 Keywords: Sustainable development Environmental Impact Assessment Mathematical model Opencast mining Iron ore Iran

a b s t r a c t

The paper outlines the application of a mathematical model of sustainability to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of two opencast iron ore mines in Iran. The model’s applicatio cation n to the EIA, which which used used the Folchi Folchi method method,, was undertak undertaken en for the purpos purpose e of indicating the potential level and nature of sustainability (if appropriate) of the two mines. The results indicated that both Chogart and Gol-e-Gohar iron ore mine were deemed to be potential potentially ly unsustaina unsustainable. ble. The results results suggests suggests the delicate delicate balance and failure failure of achieving some form of sustainability in regards to mining in Iran, due to the impacts it has upon the local environment and community affected. The paper concludes as to the potential significance of the model’s application in the attainment of the goal of sustainable mining.  2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction sustainable development and mining 1.1. Impacts of mining

It is widely accepted that there are three key pillars to the concept and implementation of sustainable development – environmental, environmental, social and economic. economic. The mining industry creates impacts (positive and negative) which are environmental, environmental, social and economic in nature [1] [1].. Consequently, sustainable development is of relevance to the mining industry [1] [1].. The environmental, environmental, social and economic impacts of mining are extensively documented documented in the literature, literature, and it is not necessary to expand on this in any great detail, but rather summarise the principal issues concerned. The positive impacts of mining are considered considered to be: (1) Technological Technological developme development nt through improved machinery machinery and methods methods [2] [2];; (2) Employment Employment and development of a highly skilled and knowledgeable workforce [2] [2];; (3) Essential raw materials for a large number of industries [3,2] [3,2];; (4) Employment and use of other professionals and services, such as lawyers, economists, investors etc. [4,1,2];; and (5) Source of wealth to governments through the collection of taxes, royalties and levies [1,2] [4,1,2] [1,2].. However, the negative impacts associated with mining are fundamentally: (1) Pollution and damage of the environment through: deforestation; acid mine drainage; noise; dust; discharges from ore processing of cyanide, mercury and arsenic to air and water sources; acid gas emissions; solid waste production; and effluent contamination [5,6,1,2] [5,6,1,2];; (2) Climate change impacts through energy consumption [6,2] [6,2];; (3) Social disorganisation, loss of livelihoods and mass displacement [5,2] [5,2];; and (4) Loss of utility and visual amenities [6,2] [6,2]..

E-mail address: [email protected]

0307-904X/$ 0307-904X/$ - see front matter  2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2013.03.029

7840

J. Phillips / Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013) 7839–7854

In addition, the other fundamental issue related to sustainable development is the extraction and utilisation of nonrenewable resources. Worrall et al. [1] highlights the fact that all mineral resources are finite and non-renewable over time in respect to humanity. Consequently mining, certainly in respect to the extraction of the finite resources of the Earth, is inherently unsustainable [7]. 1.2. The response of the mining industry

The mining industry has focussed on improving its environmental and social performance as the means to improve its record on these issues, as well as a mechanism to become more efficient and economic in its operations. The business case for sustainable development in the mining industry, as highlighted by the Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development report [2], was a key argument for improving the industry’s standing on environmental and social issues. The business case made by the MMSD report [2] was as follows: Lower labour costs and more innovative solutions – Visible evidence of Corporate Social Responsibility – Alignment of corporate and employee values – Benefits: Better motivation; Job satisfaction; Higher productivity; More innovation; Workforce creativity; Fewer trade union disputes  Lower health costs – Social Infrastructure leading to reductions in health hazards – Benefits: Higher productivity; Reduced compensation and damage claims; Lower penalties for non-compliance; Reduced costs to social services and medication  Easier Access to Lenders and Insurers, and Preferential Loan and Insurance Rates – Lower risks which leads to lower insurance costs or loan rates.  Best Practice Influence on Regulation – Influence of best practice in regulatory changes or standards set. – Competitive advantage gained over competitors – Creditability gained with regulators. 

Consequently, as noted by McCullough and Lund [8], the mining industry has worked towards reducing its operational risks and maintaining its social license to mine the resources of a community through a variety of strategies. These are focussed around the concept of sustainable development by the creation of sustainable livelihoods (employment, community development, and infrastructure); resource optimisation; and the minimisation of environmental and social impacts after the closure of the mine [8]. 1.3. Sustainable mining

Sustainable mining commonly refers to ‘‘the evaluation and management of uncertainties and risks associated with earth resource development’’ [9]. However, the concept and implementation of sustainable development continues to be debated significantly in the literature. Consequently, the mining industry needed a clear framework for establishing and managing sustainable development in regards to the relevant environmental, social and economic (and political) issues associated with mining. Therefore, the mining industry from the 1990s onwards began a process to implement sustainable development (Fig. 1), and in which the development and publication of the Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development report [2] was the key stepping stone. Other initiatives that came out of the mining industry’s concern and desire to implement sustainable development included the formation of the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM); the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI); and the Mining Certification Evaluation Project (MCEP) [10]. However, the term of ‘sustainable mining’, which has come to the forefront by the mining industry, can be deemed as oxymoronic in nature [7,11,12]. Horowitz [10] states nevertheless that sustainable mining is not necessarily antithetical, as there is a strong business case to undertaking good environmental and social management as a means to make more efficient operations. Therefore, effective assessment and management of sustainability issues is required. 1.4. Sustainability assessment and interpretation

In regards to sustainability assessment and interpretation, a major weakness is that the term is often used interchangeable with ‘environmental management’ and ‘environmental protection’ [13]. Consequently, many assessments focus on environmental protection with little mention of socio-economic issues [13]. However, there is a tool that can be used which evaluates all of the relevant issues pertinent to sustainable development – Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). With sustainable development increasingly being viewed as the ‘desirable outcome’, there is growing interest in being able to predict whether or not initiatives will contribute to sustainable development [14]. Because of this, EIAs are the favoured approach to the assessment and evaluation of the impacts of mining projects [15]. Recent developments and


7841

Fig. 1. Timeline of sustainable development and the mining industry (adapted from Worrall et al. [1]).

improvements in EIA methodologies have provided more quantitative-based evaluations to determine the impacts of mining operations, e.g. [16–19]. However, the interpretation of sustainable development is still predominantly based on a subjective interpretation and evaluation. Because of this, Phillips [20–22], was motivated to develop a mathematical model of sustainable development to define the fundamentals of sustainable development, and the ability to initially apply it to quantitativebased EIAs in order to determine the level and nature of sustainable development of projects/operations. The latter has been demonstrated and highlighted in Phillips [20,27]. In this paper, the application of the model is extended to evaluating the level and nature of two opencast iron ore mines in Iran, based upon the EIA conducted by Monjezi et al. [28] adopting the Folchi method [29] as the assessment methodology.

2. Methodology 2.1. The Folchi method 2.1.1. Outline The Folchi method was first applied to a mining operation in Sardinia, Italy in 2003. This was to quantify the environmental impact of mining by drilling and blasting of a borrow pit for gravity dam [29]. The method consists of seven stages, as stated and based on Folchi [29]:

1. Characterise the pre-existing environmental context in terms of geology, geotechnics, hydrology, weather, economy etc.; 2. Identify the ‘impacting factors’, which are those factors associated with mining which could change the pre-existing environment components ( Table 1); 3. Defining the possible ranges for the magnitude of the variation caused by each impacting factor ( Table 2); 4. Determine the environmental components whose pre-existing condition may be modified due to mining, and denoted as the ‘mining environment’. The mining environment are parameters of environmental and socio-economic conditions which would have the most significant impacts generated due to the activities of mining ( Table 1); 5. Correlating each impacting factor and each mining environmental component with a weighted value to reflect the level of impact generated by the impacting factor upon the mining environment component ( Table 3); 6. The assessor determines, based on the data collected, the specific magnitude for each impacting factor in respect to the mining environment component, using the pre-defining ranges in Table 2; and 7. Calculate the weighting sum of the environmental impact induced from the impacting factors on each environmental component.

2.1.2. Weighting the mining environment components Folchi [29] stated that the impacting factor alters the pre-existing state of a mining environmental component. This can range from no impact to a severe impact, and is represented by four levels of perturbation: nil, minimum, medium and maximum [29]. As highlighted in Step 5 of the outline of the Folchi method, appropriate weighted values were determined to reflect the level of impact created in Folchi [29]. The sum of all of these levels for each mining environment component is normalised by ensuring that the sum is equal to 10 Folchi [29]. The level of perturbation of the impacting factors for each environmental component, and the related numerical weighting factors are shown in Table 3.

7842

J. Phillips / Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013) 7839–7854 Table 1

The impacting factors and mining environment categories in the Folchi Method, after Folchi et al. [29].

Impacting factors 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Mining environment

Exposition, visibility of the pit Interference with the above-ground water system Interference with the underground water system Increase in vehicular traffic Atmospheric release of gas and dust Fly-rock Noise Ground vibration Employment of local workforce

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Human health and safety Social relationship and quality of life Water quality Air quality Use of territory Flora and fauna Above-ground Underground Landscape Noise Economy

Table 2

The magnitude ranges for impacting factors ( after [29]).

Impacting factors

Scenario

Magnitude

I. Alternation of area’s potential resources

Parks, protected areas Urban area Agricultural area, wood Industrial area Can be seen from inhabited areas Can be seen from main roads Not visible Interference with lakes and rivers Interference with non relevant water system No interference Water table superficial and permeable grounds Water table deep and permeable grounds Water table deep and unpermeable grounds Increase of 200%Increase of 100% No interference

8–10 6–8 3–6 1–3 6–10 2–6 1–2 6–10 3–6 1–3 5–10 2–5 1–2 6–10 3–6 1–3 7–10 2–7 1–2 9–10 4–9 1–4 8–10 4–8 1–4

II. Exposition, visibility of the pit

III. Interference with above ground water

IV. Interference with underground water

V. Increase in vehicular traffic

VI. Atmospheric release of gas and dust

VII. Fly rock

VIII. Noise

IX. Ground vibrati on

X. Employment of local work force

Free emissions in the atmosphere Emission around the given reference value Emission well below the given reference values No blast design and no clearance procedures Blast design and no clearance procedures Blast design and clearance procedures Peak air overpressure at 1 km distance <141 db <131 db <121 db Cosmeti c damage, above t hre shol d, above threshold Tolerability threshold Values under tolerability threshold Job opportunities High Medium Low

7–10 3–7 1–3 7–10 3–6 1–2

2.1.3. Determining the impact score The impact score for each environmental component is calculated as follows:

1. Using the magnitude ranges in Table 2, each impacting factor was assessed and its magnitude chosen. 2. The Weighted Magnitude is determined by the following simple formulae: Impacting Factor x Chosen Magnitude = Weighted Magnitude. For example, Impacting Factor – Alternation of Area’s Potential Resources:  The Impacting Factor weighting for the ‘Alternation of Area’s Potential Resources’ parameter under the Environmental Component category ‘Human Health and Safety’ is 0.80 (re: Table 3); The Chosen Magnitude obtained and judged by the assessor (i.e. [28] was 9 (nine) for the ‘Alternation of Area’s Poten tial Resources’ parameter under the ‘Human Health and Safety’ category (re: Table 2);  Therefore, the Weighted Magnitude for ‘Alternation of Area’s Potential Resources’ under the Human Health and Safety category is: 0.80  9 = 4.8 (Table 4).

Table 3

The correlation matrix of the values of the weighted influence of each impacting factor for each environmental component ( after [29]).

Impacting factors

I. Alternation of area’s potential resources II. Exposition, visibility of the pit III. Interference with above ground water IV. Interference with underground water V. Increase in vehicular traffic VI. Atmospheric release of gas and dust VII. Fly rock VIII. Noise IX. Ground vibration X. Employment of local work force Total

Environmental components Human health and safety

Social relationship

Water quality

Air quality

Use of territory

Flora and fauna

Above ground

Underground

Landscape

Noise

Economy

Med 0.80 Nil 0 Max 1.60 Min 0.40 Max 1.60 Max 1.60 Max 1.60 Med 0.80 Max 1.60 Nil 0 10

Min 0.77 Min 0.77 Nil 0 Nil 0 Max 3.08 Min 0.77 Nil 0 Max 3.08 Med 1.54 Nil 0 10

Nil 0 Nil 0 Max 4.44 Max 4.44 Nil 0 Min 1.11 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 10

Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil

Max 5.71 Med 2.86 Nil 0 Nil 0 Min 1.43 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 10

Min 0.63 Nil 0 Max 2.50 Nil 0 Max 2.50 Max 2.50 Med 1.25 Min 0.63 Nil 0 Nil 0 10

Nil 0 Nil 0 Med 6.67 Nil 0 Nil 0 Min 3.33 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 10

Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 Med 6.67 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 Min 3.33 Nil 0 10

Max 2.86 Max 2.86 Max 2.86 Nil 0 Min 0.71 Min 0.71 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 10

Nil 0 Min 2.00 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 Max 8.00 Nil 0 Nil 0 10

Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 Max 10.00 10

Max 10.00 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 Nil 0 10

J . P h i l l i p s / A p p l i e d M a t h e m a t i c a l M o d e l l i n g 3 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 7 8 3 9 – 7 8 5 4

7 8 4 3

7 8 4 4

Table 4

An example of a table containing the final determined weighted impact scores using the Folchi method. In this case, the evaluation of the environmental impact of the Mouteh opencast gold mine, from Monjezi et al. [28]. The assigned model notation for each environmental component is also provided. The results are reproduced with the very kind and gracious permission of Monjezi et al.

Impacting factors

I. Alternation of area’s potential resources II. Exposition, Visibility of the pit III. Interference with above ground water IV. Interference with underground water V. Increase in vehicular traffic VI. Atmospheric release of gas and dust VII. Fly rock VIII. Noise IX. Ground vibration X. Employment of local work force Total

Environmental components Human health and safety

Social relationship

Water quality

Air quality

Use of territory

Flora and fauna

Above ground

Underground

Landscape

Noise

Economy

7.2

6.2

0

0

51.4

5.7

0

0

25.7

0

0

0 4.8

3.9 0

0 13.3

0 0

14.3 0

0 7.5

0 20

0 0

14.3 8.6

10 0

0 0

1.6

0

17.8

0

0

0

0

26.7

0

0

0

4.8 12.8

9.2 6.2

0 8.9

0 80

4.3 0

7.5 20

0 26.6

0 0

2.1 5.7

0 0

0 0

6.4 0.8 1.6 0 40

0 3.1 1.5 0 30.8

0 0 0 0 40

0 0 0 0 80

0 0 0 0 70

5 0.6 0 0 46.3

0 0 0 0 46.7

0 0 3.3 0 30

0 0 0 0 56.4

0 8 0 0 18

0 0 0 70 70

J . P h i l l i p s / A p p l i e d M a t h e m a t i c a l M o d e l l i n g 3 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 7 8 3 9 – 7 8 5 4


7845

3. Repeating this for all environmental components, a matrix is produced, as illustrated in Table 4. 4. The overall impact for each environmental component was obtained by adding the weighted magnitudes of all the impacting factors (see: Table 4). 5. The maximum score for each overall impact total for environmental component is 100 - the higher the score, the greater the overall impact will be. 2.1.4. Potential issues With any method, there are always some issues which can potentially affect the results obtained. In the case of the Folchi method, the following could be perceived as potential issues:

1. The use of ‘fixed’ categories (Impacting Factors and Mining Environment) and the weighted levels of perturbation (Table 3) could be seen as not being responsive to the specifics of the operation or the local environment-human system. However, in Samini Namin et al. [30], the categories and weightings were altered appropriately when assessing the impacts of various mining methods, and therefore demonstrating the categories and weightings can be changed to meet specific conditions. 2. The determination of the magnitude of the impacting factors is based on judgment and expertise, according to the criteria stated in Table 2. This could be viewed as adding a level of subjectivity in the evaluation of magnitude. However, given that there is a list of defined criteria for determining magnitude scores, this requires the assessor(s) to justify the reasons for scores awarded based on the data and evidence presented. 3. The Folchi method was specifically designed to evaluate mining operations and processes. On the one hand, this is beneficial to evaluating mining operations as it makes comparing and contrasting between similar mining operations easier to undertake, and consequently highlight critical differences between operations or processes in performance and design. On the other hand, the fact that method is designed specifically for mining operations means that it cannot, at the present time, be used to evaluate other operations and processes. However, this does not preclude the possibility that it can be adapted to evaluate other operations with suitable modifications. 2.2. The mathematical model of sustainability

The mathematical model of sustainability was developed in the PhD project of Phillips et al. [20], and was further enhanced in Phillips [23]. The model defines what sustainability is, the parameters and limitations of the key components, and the conditions under which sustainability or unsustainability can occur. The model was developed and supported through utilising and expanding upon ideas and concepts within Earth System Analysis [31–33] and the ideas and concepts contained within weak and strong sustainability theory (e.g. [34–37]. The model’s definition of sustainability, and the conditions necessary for it to occur, were fully described and discussed [20–22] However, Table 5 contains a simplified description the mathematical model of sustainability developed by Phillips [20,21] in respect to the relevant equations utilised in the application methodology described in Section 2.3. 2.3. Applying the model

In the case of the Folchi method, the previous methodologies which applied the model, as highlighted in [20,21,23,24,26,27], were not entirely appropriate. This was because the Folchi method assesses the level of ‘negative’ impacts upon the environment, with the sole exception of evaluating the level of positive benefits to the economy through improved job opportunities from the project, as highlighted in Tables 2 and 3. In Phillips [25], which used an Environmental Impact Assessment of abandoned limestone quarries using the Folchi method conducted by Khalaf [38], the following modifications were undertaken to apply the model: (1) In regards to evaluating the obtained value of H NI, this would involve a calculation in the following format: HNI ¼

bðHNI1 þ HNI2 Þ þ ðHNI3max  HNI3 Þc P HNImax

:

ð8Þ

This was in comparison to the previous format used in [20,21,23,24,26,27] when applying the model to either the Battelle Environmental Evaluation System (BEES) [39] or the Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix (RIAM) [40,41]: P P HNImax  HNI P HNI ¼ ð9Þ HNI max

:

(2) In the case of determining an obtained value of E , the technique of the ‘inverse score’ was adopted, which was originally developed for determining HNI in [20,21,23,24,26,27]. This is because the Folchi method adopts a ‘negative’ approach to the valuation of the environment – the higher the score, the largest the (negative) impact. Therefore, to determine the available level of E remaining, the calculation of E was conducted using the following basic format:

7846


Table 5

A simplified description of the key equations used in the application of the model, based on Phillips et al. [20] and Phillips [21].

Equation no.

Mod el equati on

Descri pti on

(1)

S(t ) = E(t )  HNI (t )

(2)

E(t ) = (A + B + H + L)

(3)

E(t ) = [E 0 6 E 6 Emax ]

(4)

HNI (t) = [HNI 6 HNI 6 HNI max ]

(5)

E(t ) > H NI (t ) , S(t ) > 0

(6)

E(t ) 6 HNI(t ) , S(t ) 6 0

This is the model’s primary equation which states that sustainability (S), for any specific point in time (t ), is obtained by the determined or attributed value of the Environment (E) minus the determined or attributed value of Human Needs and Interests (HNI ) [20,21] The environment (E) is defined as the four integral sub-spheric systems which is necessary for all planetary operation: Atmosphere (A), Biosphere (B), Hydrosphere (H), and Lithosphere (L) [20,21]These sub-spheres have an impact or role to play in influencing the development and character of E [20,21]Furthermore, the subspheres evolve over time to a perceived end result, or continuously adapts due to changes within the system or due to an event(s) [20,21] The Envi ronme nt (E), just like any natural or anthropogenic system, has pre-determined maximum limits for its safe operation due to the interdependence of the operations within and between the sub-spheres [20,21]E is therefore dependent upon the space needed or taken for sub-spheric operations; and the time required for evolution, adaption, mitigation and repair of the system(s) [20,21] Consequently, any determined or attributed values of E must reflect the significance and magnitude of the impact/effect (potential or actual) in respect to the present state of the condition of E [20,21] HNI is dependent upon the resources and services available and produced by E which ensures tolerable conditions for human to live and survive [20,21]If H NI increased at a rate that is at the increasing detriment of E, then this infers that there is a maximum limit for H NI based on the resources and services of the E left available [20,21]. This means as a consequence that when E eventually is degraded beyond a point of no return at whatever spatial scale, it means humans need to live somewhere else [20,21]Therefore, this infers that there is a limit to the potential determined or attributed value of H NI obtained for any specific point of time [20,21] For a l eve l of S to occur at any point of time and for a specified spatial scale, then the determined or attributed value of E must be greater than the determined or attributed value of H NI [20,21] If the determined or attributed value of E is less than or equal to the determined or attributed value of H NI , then S would not occur and infers unsustainability [20,21]. This is because there must be a continuous source of E and H NI to utilise, and that it must not endanger the safe operation of E [20,21] *

*

Determined values of E and/or H NI refer to real-time data collected through experiments, observations or quantitative measures such as indicators or quantitatively-based Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Attributed values of E and H NI are data obtained using a value judgment approach, such as in the case of a qualitative or semi-quantitative EIA [20,21].

E ¼

E max 

P

P

Emax

E :

ð10Þ

This ensures that the correct valuation of the level of the viable and working environment is obtained, in order to calculate the level and nature of sustainable development (if appropriate). The full methodology used in applying the model to the Folchi method with these modifications, and consequently to the results obtained by Monjezi et al. [28], is provided in Fig. 2. 2.4. Strengths and weaknesses of model theory and application

Based upon previous work highlighted in [20–25] and peer review comments, Phillips [26] discussed the model’s potential fundamental strengths and weaknesses in respect to the theory and its application. Table 6 summarises the key findings and determinations made. 2.5. Potential issues with model application to Folchi method

When applying any model, there are always some considerations required in respect to the potential accuracy and any errors that may have occurred. This is certainly the case here with the model being applied to the results obtained by Mon jezi et al. [28] using the Folchi Method. Therefore, to provide a proper context for the interpretation and understanding of the results, the following are the potential issues that may arise: (1) The Folchi Method is a good method in one way as the impacting factors and weightings are fixed. This means that mining operations can be directly compared to one another, and thus make determinations and comparisons of potential indicated levels and nature of sustainability between mining operations. However, the fixed impacting factors and weightings can also be viewed as a bad thing as site specific issues, e.g. hydrological conditions, geology, proximity of local community etc., may not be taken into account as much as it should be. This means that potential errors in respect to an under or overvaluing of the importance of a specific impacting factor(s) may occur. However, as recently demonstrated in Samini Namin et al. [30] in respect to mining methods, the impacting factors and weightings can be altered as required to properly accommodate the needs and objectives of the assessment.


7847

Fig. 2. The flowchart process for the application of the mathematical model of sustainable development to the Folchi method (adapted from [20]).

7848


Table 6

A summary of the potential strengths and weaknesses of the mathematical model of sustainability in regards to the theory and application, based on Phillips [26].

Model’s potential strengths 1. A clear fundamental definition of sustainability, the nature of the environment and human needs, and consequently the conditions under which sustainability occur 2. The ability to obtain a single indicative value of sustainability and corresponding level – very weak, weak, strong or very strong for a specific point in time 3. The ability to apply to a variety of quantitative-based assessments (e.g. EIA, risk assessment, indicators etc.) to determine whether sustainability or unsustainability is occurring through a consistent framework 4. The model can accommodate as many individual pieces of data as deemed appropriate by the user/assessor, and so consequently, properly reflect the system’s complexity at a specific spatial–temporal scale 5. The model can be applied to weighted assessment methodology, such as the Battelle Environmental Evaluation System (BEES) [39] 6. Obtain values and levels of S (if appropriate) over whatever spatial– temporal scale required, e.g. evaluate project in respect to beforeduring-after scenarios 7. The ability to use a repeatable and consistent definition of sustainability, which consequently makes comparisons between similar projects easier to contrast 8. The model’s application to impact (or risk) assessments could be of considerable benefit to practitioners and society generally. This is because of their goals to identify, analyse, predict and mitigate potential significant impacts and risks to the environment and society

Model’s potential weaknesses 1. The model could viewed as an oversimplification of perceived concepts and complexity of what constitutes sustainability, particularly in respect to coupled dynamic environment-human relationship 2. The specified value ranges for weak/strong sustainability could be construed by some as arbitrary 3. The possibility of useful information being lost by the cumulation of multiple indicators or values into a single indicative value of sustainability 4. It is possible to ascribe to the view that the model merely is a mathematical conversion from one set of values to another in determining sustainability 5. Any obtained value of S , within the specified range of 0.001–1.000, could be considered as vague or meaningless because of no unit or value system, or context 6. The results obtained by the model are sensitive to the original results of the assessment used in two specific respects: (a) Where there is an element of subjective or professional judgement used; and/or (b) The categorisation of environmental and human parameters

(2) As with any scientific or engineering study, the findings and conclusions are only as good as the data, methods and personnel used to collect them. In the case of the model’s application to the Folchi method, it is dependent on the accuracy of the data and the competence of those who collected and evaluated the mining operations concerned. In respect to the latter point, we find no reason whatsoever to doubt the competence of those whom conducted the original study, and which was published in a respected peer-review journal. As for the accuracy of the data, this is a key debate within EIA theory and practice because it is associated with the question of how to assess the nature, scale and longevity of an impact upon the environment. No EIA method is perfect as all have their good and bad points. Therefore, the assessor has to choose the most appropriate approach to the situation concerned. In the case of Monjezi et al. [28] choosing the Folchi method, this was certainly an appropriate method due to its mining specific focus and its ability to directly compare and contrast other mining operations. However, whilst the impacting factors and weightings may be fixed, there is an element of professional judgment in respect to the evaluation of the chosen magnitude of the impact ( Table 2). Whilst there are specific criteria in respect to the determination of each chosen magnitude for the impacting factors, it is still dependant on the objectivity of the assessor to determine an appropriate score based on the collected and available data. Consequently in respect to the model, the results obtained can be influenced by an error(s) in the final weighted magnitude totals due to poor judgment of the assessor in determining the appropriate chosen magnitude score. In the case of Monjezi et al. [28], there is no evidence that this or other errors may have occurred. However, we acknowledge the fact that our own results are dependent on the good conduct and practice of others, and that it is a fair representation of the situation at the time when the Folchi assessment was conducted. (3) The results of the model are dependent on the number of categories/parameters being available to calculate the environmental and human aspects of the mining operation. In the case of the Folchi method, there were eight environmental parameters and three human parameters. It would be preferable if there were more parameters which were more specific, as in previous model application to the Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix (re: [20,23,26,27]) and the Battelle Environmental Evaluation System (re: [20,21,24]). However, this should not detract from the model’s potential usefulness as a mechanism for provide an indicatory approach to identify potential areas of weakness or concern within an mining context for improving the overall sustainability of its operation through a coupled environment-human approach. Furthermore, it can potentially provide a further mechanism to continuously monitor, mitigate or improve environmental and anthropogenic factors or impacts, and thus potentially improve the level of sustainability of the mining operation throughout its operational and post-operational duration.


7849

Table 7

The original final totals from the evaluation of the environmental-human impacts of the two opencast iron ore mines evaluated by Monjezi et al. [28]. The assigned model notation for each environmental component is also provided. The original results have been reproduced with Monjezi et al.’s very kind and gracious permission.

Environmental components

Model Notation Chogart Gol-e-Gohar

Human health & Social safety relationship

Water quality

Air Use of quality territory

Flora and fauna

Above ground

Underground Landscape Noise Economy

HNI 1 56.0 55.6

H1 42.2 50.0

A1 60.0 50.0

B1 54.4 47.6

L 2 33.3 36.7

L 3 60.0 76.7

HNI 2 66.2 61.6

L 1 65.7 31.4

L 4 50.0 30.7

A2 58.0 60.0

HNI 3 80.0 70.0

Table 8

Obtained Values of E , H NI and S (if appropriate) for the four opencast mines, based on and evaluated by Monjezi et al. [28].

Mines

E

HNI

S-Value

S-Level

Chogart Gol-e-Gohar

0.471 0.521

0.471 0.622

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

3. Calculations and results 3.1. Scene-setting

The model was applied to the results of an EIA of two opencast iron ore mining operations in Iran assessed by Monjezi et al. [28] using the Folchi method [29]. The mines assessed consisted of case studies of Chogart and Gol-e-Gohar mines. 3.1.1. Chogart mine Chogart iron ore mine is located 12 km north-east of Bafgh, and 125 km south-east of Yazd in the Yazd province [28]. The region has significant deposits of minerals such as iron, manganese, apatite, lead and zinc [28]. The mine was originally designed in 1970 for a mineable ore reserve of 134 Mt [28]. The height of the benches is 12.5 m, and the overall pit slope and angle of the working benches are at 50  and 69 [28]. Mill plant recovery is 70% and the amount of annual concentrate and waste production is 3 and 1.3 Mt respectively [28]. Electric power consumption of the mill plant is 40 kwh/tonne of concentrate [28]. 3.1.2. Gol-e-Gohar mine Gol-e-Gohar mine is located approximately 55 km south-west of Sirjan in the Kerman province [28]. The mine operates with benches’ height of 15 m, and working slope angles of 50  and 70 [28]. Mill plant recovery is 68% and the capacity of the mill plant is 5 Mt concentrate per year with 1.35 Mt annual production of tailings [28]. 3.2. Original results

The original results from Monjezi et al. [28] are summarised in Table 7. These results form the basis for the application of the model in the calculation of an indicated level and nature of sustainable development (if appropriate) for the operation of the two mines. 3.3. Calculations

Based on Table 7 and utilising the methodology described in Fig. 2, the following calculations for determining the indicated level and nature of sustainable development for each mine were undertaken. For each stage of the calculations presented, the corresponding step(s) in respect to Fig. 2 are shown in brackets, so to highlight each part of the methodology being applied. (See Table 8)

7850


(a) Determination of Components of S (Step 2) (i) Components of E (Step 2b) A1 = Air Quality A2 = Noise B1 = Flora and fauna H1 = Water Quality L 1 = Use of territory L 2 = Above ground L 3 = Underground L 4 = Landscape (ii) Components of H NI (Step 2c) HNI 1 = Human health & safety HNI 2 = Social relationship HNI 3 = Economy (iii) Determination of Maximum Possible Score for E and H NI Components (Step 2d) Amax = 2  100 = 200 Bmax = 1  100 = 100 Hmax = 1  100 = 100 L max = 4  100 = 400 Emax = (200 + 100 + 100 + 400) HNI max = (100 + 100 + 100) (b) Evaluate S for Chogart Iron Ore Mine S ¼ E

 HNI

:

(i) Calculate E (Step 3) Determine E within range 0 6 E 6 1 P P P P P P P P ½ð Amax  AÞ þ ð Bmax  BÞ þ ð Hmax  HÞ þ ð L max  L Þ P P P P E ¼ ð Amax þ Bmax þ Hmax þ L max Þ E ¼

E ¼

E ¼ E ¼

½ð

P

;

P P P Bmax  B1 Þ þ ð Hmax  H1 Þ þ ð L max  ð L 1 þ L 2 þ L 3 þ L 4 ÞÞ P P P P ð Amax þ Bmax þ Hmax þ L max Þ

Amax  ð A1 þ A2 ÞÞ þ ð

½ð 200  ð60 þ 58ÞÞ þ ð100  54 4Þ þ ð 100  42 2Þ þ ð400  ð65 7 þ 33 3 þ 60 þ 50ÞÞ ð200 þ 100 þ 100 þ 400Þ :

:

ð 82 þ 45 6 þ 57 8 þ 191Þ :

:

800 376 4 :

800

E ¼ 0 471 :

:

(ii) Calculate H NI (Step 4) Determine HNI within range 0 HNI ¼

HNI ¼

HNI ¼

6

HNI 6 1 (Step 4a and b)

½ð HNI1 þ HNI2 Þ þ ð HNI3max  HNI3actual Þ P HNImax

ð55 þ 66 2Þ þ ð100  80Þ :

300

;

141 2 :

300

HNI ¼ 0 471 :

:

(iii) Determine if S occurs (Step 5a–b) E = 0.471 HNI = 0.471 Therefore:

:

:

;

;


E 6 HNI () S 6 0

7851

:

(iv) Findings: (Step 5c) Result : As the calculated value of E is less than/equal to the calculated value for H NI, this implies that the project option being evaluated is potentially unsustainable. (c) Evaluate S for Gol-e-Gohar Iron Ore Mine S ¼ E

 HNI

:

(i) Calculate E (Step 3) Determine E within range 0 6 E 6 1 P P P ½ð Amax  ð A1 þ A2 ÞÞ þ ð Bmax  B1 Þ þ ð Hmax  H1 Þ þ ð L max  ð L 1 þ L 2 þ L 3 þ L 4 ÞÞ P P P P E ¼ ð Amax þ Bmax þ Hmax þ L max Þ E ¼

;

½ð 200  ð50 þ 60ÞÞ þ ð100  47 6Þ þ ð100  50Þ þ ð400  ð31 4 þ 36 7 þ 76 7 þ 30 7ÞÞ ð200 þ 100 þ 100 þ 400Þ :

:

:

:

:

E ¼ 0 521 :

:

(ii) Calculate H NI (Step 4) Determine HNI within range 0 HNI ¼

HNI ¼

6 HNI 6 1 (Steps

cðHNI1 þ HNI2 Þ þ ðHNI3max  HNI3actual Þb P HNImax

4a and b)

;

ð55 6 þ 61 6Þ þ ð100  30 7Þ :

:

:

300

;

HNI ¼ 0 622 :

:

(iii) Determine if S occurs (Steps 5a-b) E = 0.521 HNI = 0.622 Therefore: E 6 HNI () S 6 0

:

(iv) Findings: (Step 5c) Result : As the calculated value of E is less than/equal to the calculated value for H NI, this implies that the project option being evaluated is potentially unsustainable. (d) Evaluation Table of S-Value and S-Level (Steps 8–9) 4. Discussion of results 4.1. Overview

The results from the application of the model to the original results obtained by Monjezi et al. [28] indicated the following: Chogart mine is indicated to be as potentially unsustainable because the obtained E-value of 0.471 was less than the obtained H NI-value of 0.471.  Gol-e-Gohar mine is indicated to be as potentially unsustainable due to the obtained E -value of 0.521 being less than the obtained a H NI-value of 0.622. 

The basis for these results shall now be explored. Referring to the final original results highlighted in Table 7, there is evidence as to why the values of E , HNI, and S for the mining operations were obtained. There are some clear similarities in results between the two mines with respect to Human health & safety and Noise. However, there are also some significant differences. Gol-e-Gohar scored much better in regards to reduced environmental impact than Chogart in the following respects: Air quality; Use of Territory, Landscape and Economy. By the same token, Chogart scored much better than Gol-e-Gohar in respect to Water quality. Nevertheless, the remaining scores are within a small percentage of each other, indicating similarities in types of impact imposed upon the local environment and community.

7852


4.2. Chogart mine

Chogart mine has significant indications of environment and human impacts upon the local area. The largest impacts are in respect to economy, social relationship and use of territory with obtained scores of 80, 66.2 and 65.7, as noted by Monjezi et al. [28]. These would indicate significant changes over time to local community from traditional economic and social activities to activities associated with mining. This may mean that there has been loss of agricultural and/or community land that is now use in mining. Consequently, this infers the loss of local skills and traditions within the local community. It also suggests the relationship between the mine operators and the local community is quite poor, which not wholly unexpected. This may also have to do with a decrease in air quality due to the pollution caused by mining, and the loss of flora and fauna. 4.3. Gol-e-Gohar mine

Gol-e-Gohar on the other hand, whilst experiencing similar issues, generally has less impact than Chogart, but not by much. Social relationship and local economy issues appear to be just as awkward as with Chogart, however to a slightly lesser degree. The loss of land is not a significant an issue as with Chogart, infers that agriculture and other land-based activities are not as dominated. Nevertheless, there are some issues of concern. Predominantly, the far higher score for impacts obtained in respect to underground factors. This would indicate, as noted by Monjezi et al. [28], that ground vibration caused by blasting is a significant issue. Monjezi et al. [28] suggested reducing the charge to mitigate this impact. However, the causation of significant ground vibration may be due to one or more of the following factors: poor training and knowledge; poor or inadequate placement of explosives; types of explosives and fuses used; and types of geology. The other category where Gol-e-Gohar scored higher than Chogart was on water quality. Water quality in the mining situation is easily affected dependant on the local geology and hydrology of the area. This would be due to by-products of the iron ore body, blasting, and tailings, which entering rivers and lakes by surface and underground hydrological processes. This would result in a degradation of water quality through colouration, change in pH, and change in oxygen levels. These would all pose threats to and impacts on aquatic flora and fauna, due to the sensitivity of their physiology and environmental requirements. What however is clear in the case of both Chogart and Gol-e-Gohar is the level of impacts is still high. The results suggest, in this particular instance, the delicately balanced nature of mining in its impact upon the local environment and community. It clearly demonstrates the importance of local factors upon the potential sustainability or unsustainability of a mining operation. 4.4. Potential mitigation and management

The results from the original results of Monjezi et al. [28] and the application of the model indicate the need for vastly improved environmental management and community relations. This should begin to assist the mines to become more sustainable within the local environment and community. The following are the main immediate areas of improvement which could be implemented to begin addressing the potential sustainability issues raised: 1. Communication: There needs to be a proper framework for communication between the mine operators and the local community. Whilst the mining operation does provide valuable economic and employment benefits, the environmental and nuisance impacts do cause considerable disturbance and disruption to the local community. Therefore, the operators of the mines may wish, for example, to consider a panel comprising of the representatives of the mine and the local community to discuss on a regular basis: potential changes to the operations; issues of concerns raised by the local community; and ways to minimise the nuisance and impacts from operations. 2. Reducing the Visual Impact: There is the need for minimising of the visual impacts of the mining operations, particularly at the Chogart mine. Planting of trees or other suitable flora is standard procedure to minimise such impacts, as well as providing a mechanism to improve the immediate ecological conditions for displaced flora and fauna, as well as a mechanism for noise and dust reduction from mining operations. 3. Health & Safety: There are indications of improvements required in health & safety procedures. Whilst no discussion of such procedures were highlighted by Monjezi et al. [28], the scores obtained for both mines do suggest at least minimum legal compliance, but no more than that. Health & safety procedures that go beyond the minimum legal requirement has considerable benefits not only to improve the productivity of the workforce, but also improves operational efficiency, minimises potential environment and nuisance hazards, and improve confidence by investors or economic institutions. These are all points raised in the MMSD report [2] concerning sustainable development in the mining industry. Thus, having a strong health & safety approach can, in conjunction with appropriate environmental management and mitigation, begin to improve and address the social and economic dimensions of sustainable development within a mining context. 4. Air Quality: There needs to be improvements in the air quality. This, in the case of a mining operation, can be due to in essence dust, atmospheric emissions, and/or odour. Dust can be a considerable hazard to ecology and the local community which can block plant stomata which prevent normal respiration leading to death of the plant; or dust from quartz-based minerals/rocks inhaled by humans can lead to silicosis which is potentially fatal. Atmospheric emissions result from the operation of extraction and processing facilities and vehicles, and consequently producing a range of hydrocarbon, sulphur-based, nitrogen-based, and other carbon-based emissions which contribute to local pollution


7853

and the greenhouse effect,. Odour can result from sulphur-based emissions from processes that give the impression of ‘rotten eggs’ being smelt or other emissions which cause a considerable nuisance to the local community, such as excessive vehicle exhaust due to trucks moving in and out of the mine. 5. Environmental Management Plan: There is no indication in Monjezi et al. [28] of what steps the mines undertaken towards environmental management and monitoring. Therefore, assuming there is no environmental management or the current procedures are insufficient, a significant environmental management plan is required to minimise the impacts to the local environment and community. Furthermore, such a plan should provide a mechanism to improve the overall efficiency of the mines and minimise further the risks to the health & safety of the workforce and the local community from potential hazards. As a result, this could and should provide the appropriate improvements in the environmental aspects of the mines’ operations to consequently improve their potential sustainability. Any such plan should immediately address the issues concerning air quality, underground impacts, noise, and flora and fauna, with the remaining environment issues to be addressed at the next stage. In addition, such a plan must have: clear thresholds for environmental quality; regular monitoring procedures to detect any changes; and mitigation procedures for continuously improving the environmental quality of the mine overall, as well as for emergency situations such as a major pollution incident. The plan should also contain clear procedures as to the process of rehabilitation of the mine and the local environment after the cessation of mining operations, which will assist the improvement of the sustainability of the local environment-human system. 5. Conclusion

The paper has demonstrated the application of a mathematical model of sustainable development [20–23] to the EIA of two opencast iron ore mines in Iran using the Folchi method as conducted by Monjezi et al. [28]. The results indicated that the Chogart and Gol-e-Gohar iron ore mines were deemed as unsustainable. The application of the model to the Folchi method of EIA is of significance to the mining industry. It provides another mechanism to begin towards the path of sustainable mining through evaluation of impacts, and then develop and evaluate potential strategies and alternatives in order to improve mining operations. Further, the model and its application is recognition of the coupled nature of the world we all live in, whereby a human action or activity can impact on upon the local environment and community, and may impact further up the spatial scale of the Earth System. Therefore in summary, the model and application provides for the conceptual and practical implementation of sustainable development within the scope of the project under consideration. It further offers assistance towards evaluating potential solutions towards successful sustainable practices, which in turn ensures the development of a co-evolutionary relationship between the environment and humans. This is the essence and crux of sustainable mining. Acknowledgment

I would like to sincerely thank Dr Patrick Foster of the Camborne School of Mines, University of Exeter for his comments and suggestions in respect to the paper. References [1] R. Worrall, D. Neil, D. Brereton, et al, Towards a sustainability criteria and indicators framework for legacy mine land, J. Cleaner Prod. 17 (2009) 1426– 1434. [2] Mining, Minerals, and Sustainable Development Project (MMSD), Breaking New Ground: Mining, Minerals, and Sustainable Development: The Report of the MMSD Project, Earthscan Publications, London, 2002. [3] A. Azapagic, Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining and minerals industry, J. Cleaner Prod. 12 (2004) 639–662. [4] B. Dold, Sustainability in metal mining: from exploration, over processing to mine water management, Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 7 (2008) 275–285. [5] A. Kumah, Sustainability and gold mining in the developing world, J. Cleaner Prod. 14 (2006) 315–323. [6] J. Petrie, New models of sustainability for the resources sector, Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 85 (1) (2007) 88–98. [7] G.M. Mudd, An assessment of the sustainability of the mining industry in Australia, in: National Conference on Environmental Engineering: EES 2005 – Creating Sustainable Solutions, Sydney, Australia, 18th–19th July 2005. [8] C.D. McCullough, M.A. Lund, Opportunities for sustainable mining pit lakes in Australia, Mine Water Environ. 25 (2006) 220–226. [9] J.A. Meech, A review of CERM3’s activities: Year 1. Access available from: http://mining.ubc.ca/cerm3/Presentation%2001%20%20CERM3%20Review%20-20John%20Meech.ppt, 2006. [10] L. Horowitz, Section 2: mining and sustainable development, J. Cleaner Prod. 14 (2006) 307–308. [11] P. Benson, S. Kirsch, Corporate oxymorons, Dialect. Anthropol. 34 (2010) 45–48. [12] S. Kirsch, Sustainable mining, Dialect. Anthropol. 34 (2010) 87–93. [13] G. Hilson, Sustainable development policies in Canada’s mining sector: an overview of government and industrial efforts, Environ. Sci. Policy 3 (2000) 201–211. [14] R. Bisset, Environmental impact assessment: issues, trends and practice. UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, 1996. [15] T. Hacking, Assessment for sustainable development: theoretical framework and mining sector case studies from Canada, Namibia, and South Africa. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Engineering, Selwyn College, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2006. [16] B.C. Sarkar, B.N. Mahanta, K. Saikia, et al, Geo-environmental quality assessment in Jharia coalfield, India, using multivariate statistics and geographic information systems, Environ. Geol. 51 (2007) 1177–1196. [17] H. Si, H. Bi, X. Li, C. Yang, Environmental evaluation for sustainable development of coal mining in Qijiang, Western China, Int. J. Coal Geol. 81 (2010) 163–168. [18] K.I. Vatalis, D.C. Kaliampakos, An overall index of environmental quality in coal mining areas and energy facilities, Environ. Manage. 38 (2006) 1031– 1045.

7854


[19] J. Yu, S. Yao, R. Chen, et al, A quantitative integrated evaluation of sustainable development of mineral resources of a mining city: a case study of Huangshi, Eastern China, Resour. Policy 30 (2005) 7–19. [20] J. Phillips, The development and application of a geocybernetic model of sustainability. Ph.D. Thesis (Unpublished), Dept. of Geography (Streatham Campus) and Camborne School of Mines (Cornwall Campus), University of Exeter, United Kingdom, 2009. [21] J. Phillips, The advancement of a mathematical model of sustainable development, Sustain. Sci. 5 (1) (2010) 127–142. [22] J. Phillips, A mathematical model of sustainable development using ideas of coupled environment-human systems (Invited Article). The Pelican Web’s J. Sustain. Develop. 6(5), May 2010, Access available online from: . [23] J. Phillips, Evaluating the level and nature of sustainable development for a geothermal power plant, Renew. Sustainable Energy Rev. 14 (8) (2010) 2414–2427. [24] J. Phillips, Evaluating the level and nature of sustainable development of a mining operation: a new approach using the ideas of coupled environmenthuman systems, Int. J. Min. Miner. Eng. 2 (3) (2010) 215–238. [25] J. Phillips, The level and nature of sustainability for clusters of abandoned limestone quarries in the southern Palestinian West Bank, Israel, Appl. Geogr. 32 (2012) 376–392. [26] J. Phillips, Applying a mathematical model of sustainability to the rapid impact assessment matrix evaluation of the coal mining tailings dumps in the Jiului Valley, Romania, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 63 ( 2012) 17–25. [27] J. Phillips, Using a mathematical model to assess the sustainability of proposed bauxite mining in Andhra Pradesh, India from a quantitative-based environmental impact assessment, Environ. Earth Sci. 67 (2012) 1587–1603. [28] M. Monjezi, K. Shahriar, H. Dehghani, F. Samini Namin, Environmental impact assessment of open pit mining in Iran, Environ. Geol. 58 (2009) 205–216. [29] R. Folchi, Environmental impact statement for mining with explosives: a quantitative method, in: I.S.E.E 29th Annual Conference on Explosive and Blasting Technique, Nashville, Tennessee, USA, 2nd–5th February 2003. [30] F. Samini Namin, K. Shahriar, A. Bascetin, Environmental impact assessment of mining activities: A new approach for mining methods selection. Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi 27(2) (2011) 113–143. http://www.min-pan.krakow.pl/Wydawnictwa/GSM272/namin-shahriar-basceti.pdf. [31] H.-J. Schellnhuber, Part 1: earth system analysis – the concept, in: H.-J. Schellnhuber, V. Wenzel (Eds.), Earth System Analysis: Integrating Science for Sustainable development, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 1998, pp. 3–195. [32] H.-J. Schellnhuber, Earth system’ analysis and the second Copernican revolution, Nature 402 (Millennium Supplement) (December 1999). C19–23. [33] H.-J. Schellnhuber, Earth system analysis and management, in: E. Ehlers, T. Kraft (Eds.), Understanding the Earth System: Compartments, Processes and Interactions Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2001, pp. 17–55. [34] R. Costanza, H.E. Daly, Natural capital and sustainable development, Conserv. Biol. 6 (1) (1992) 37–46. [35] H.E. Daly, Operationalizing sustainable development by investing in natural capital, in: A. Jansson et al. (Eds.), Investing in Natural Capital , Island Press, Washington DC, 1994, pp. 22–37. [36] R. Goodland, H. Daly, Environmental sustainability: universal and non-negotiable, Ecol. Appl. 6 (4) (1996) 1002–1017. [37] D.W. Pearce, R.K. Turner, Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment, Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, 1990. [38] M. Abu Khalaf, Environmental impacts assessment and horizons of rehabilitation of abandoned limestone quarries: a case study from the southern part of the west bank. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Faculty of Engineering, Universita Degli Studi Di Roma Tor Vergata, 2010. Accessed from: http:// dspace.uniroma2.it/dspace/handle/2108/1256 (6th February 2011). [39] N. Dee, J.K. Baker, N.L. Drobny, et al, An environmental evaluation system for water resource planning, Water Resour. Res. 9 (3) (1973) 523–535. [40] C.M.R. Pastakia, The rapid impact assessment matrix (RIAM) – a new tool for environmental impact assessment, Accessed from: (3rd June 2006), 1998. [41] C.M.R. Pastakia, A. Jensen, The rapid impact assessment matrix (RIAM) for EIA, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 18 (1998) 461–482.

Mathematical model of sustainability

Recommend Documents