Comparative study of factors affecting public acceptance of mining projects: Evidence from USA, China and Turkey
Journal of Cleaner Production, ISSN: 0959-6526, Vol: 237, Page: 117634
2019
- 68Citations
- 10Usage
- 78Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations68
- Citation Indexes68
- 68
- CrossRef62
- Usage10
- Abstract Views10
- Captures78
- Readers78
- 78
Article Description
Discrete choice theory has been shown to be a viable way to study individual preferences for resource development. However, only a limited amount of literature assesses the effect of culture, socio-economic, historical, and regulatory factors on the classification of factors that are important to individual preferences for resource development used in designing valid discrete choice experiments. This work seeks to assess differences in the levels of importance among the determinants of public acceptance of mining projects due to differences in cultural, regulatory, socio-economic, and historical contexts. This will be accomplished by comparing the levels of importance as reported by respondents in the United States, China and Turkey. We used the same survey in the three countries to: (1) validate in China and Turkey the classification of mining project characteristics identified by previous research in the United States; (2) verify the key demographic factors that can be used to explain individual preferences relating to project characteristics in China and Turkey; and (3) compare the differences between attitudes of respondents from mining communities in the United States, China and Turkey. The median ranking of all 16 project characteristics was higher than the midpoint ranking (neither important nor unimportant), verifying that this classification of factors were valid in the three countries. Age, gender, income, education, and number of children were related to the respondents' rankings of the importance of the mining project characteristics. We observed several differences in the rankings that can be attributed to the differences in culture, socio-economics, and historical and regulatory context and found that the level of development and national culture played a moderating role in the effect of demographics on the respondents’ rankings. These results provide insights for those designing discrete choice experiments and other instruments for facilitating mining community engagement in cross-cultural settings.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652619324849; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117634; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85069962852&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959652619324849; https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/min_nuceng_facwork/1521; https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2522&context=min_nuceng_facwork; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117634
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know