Next Article in Journal
Recycling in Brasil: Paper and Plastic Supply Chain
Next Article in Special Issue
Improving the Sustainability of Farming Practices through the Use of a Symbiotic Approach for Anaerobic Digestion and Digestate Processing
Previous Article in Journal
Seasonal Migration and Settlement around Lake Chad: Strategies for Control of Resources in an Increasingly Drying Lake
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Using Social, Economic and Land-Use Indices to Build a Local Sustainability Index in a Mining Region of the Sierra Tarahumara, Mexico

Facultad de Zootecnia y Ecologia, Universidad Autonoma de Chihuahua, Periferico Francisco R. Almada Km 1, Chihuahua 31110, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Resources 2017, 6(3), 42; https://doi.org/10.3390/resources6030042
Submission received: 13 July 2017 / Revised: 8 August 2017 / Accepted: 21 August 2017 / Published: 28 August 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability Indicators for Environment Management)

Abstract

:
Ore mining has served as a predictor of economic wellbeing since it brought development to countries. However, these benefits do not always extend to all localities that comprised the center of this industry. This paper examined the contribution of mining to local communities. An index of local sustainability was constructed based on economic, social, and land-use data from twelve localities where mining and forestry are their major economic activities. Land-use variables were obtained from Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM 5) images for 2000, and Landsat Operational Land Imager (OLI8) for 2014, while the socio-economic variables were collected in twelve localities with an 85-question survey. A sustainability index was developed for each group of variables—economic (ESI), social (SSI) and land-use sustainability index (LUSI)—to further build a local sustainability index (LSI). Three localities showed the highest ESI (0.61, 0.53 and 0.43) and SSI (0.90, 0.79 and 0.78), while two localities had the lowest values in the ESI and SSI. In contrast, the highest value of LUSI was found in two other different localities and in one with lower SSI. Income from mining activities is positively associated with the ESI and SSI, but there was no evidence of linear association with the LUSI. A local index of sustainability provides useful information for planning and development strategies.

1. Introduction

Metal ore extraction has been important for the economic development of nations even before industrialization. More recently, low- and middle-income countries have increased their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) [1] and consequently higher human development indices have been achieved due to mining industry [2]. However, there is debate about the economic benefits offered by mining and the high underlying costs of the environmental degradation produced by its operations [3,4,5,6]. The extraction of mineral resources, especially surface mining, causes numerous environmental and social impacts [7,8,9]. The most common is degradation to some landscapes [10], which, along with the increasing land-use change patterns and forest fragmentation, drastically affects equilibrium in ecosystems [11,12,13]. Consequently, there is a loss of soil productivity [14] that further impacts the livelihood of rural localities [15]. Other forms of social impacts are due to changes in infrastructure networks, non-balanced industrial development, resettlement and changes in the economic and social structure of the local population, family disruption, schooling drop offs [16], and loss of cultural heritage [16].
The large economic benefits associated with large foreign investment, exports and fiscal revenues [2] of mining have made possible the development of polices and technologies to mitigate and remediate those impacts [17]. Mining companies are committed to reducing the amount of water and energy needed for their operations and research has improved the treatment of acid rock drainage and wastewater; in addition, land reclamation is included into their business plans as suggested by international standards [18]. While these sustainable practices have been steadily implemented around the world, the degree of the impacts and contribution of mining depends on different factors that are more relevant at the local level [19]. Consequently, assessments at the local level are important to better allocate resources and solutions that will enhance the quality of life of inhabitants around mining operations. In this sense, measuring sustainability as a metric that encompasses economic, social, and land use variables, of areas under ore extraction should be a requirement to develop strategies that favor production and natural resource management [20]. Sustainability indicators and composite indices are instrumental to communicate complex information [21] and serve to monitor and evaluate sustainable strategies [22,23]; in addition, they provide guidance to decision makers [24] when developing public policies [25]. Furthermore, indicators and indices can also be used to make comparisons among countries and regions [26]. At the regional and local level sustainability indices serve to assess the contribution of mining to small rural and indigenous localities, which are frequently the owners of the intervened land [27].
Land-use planning implies the evaluation of forest landscape impacts to further understand the dynamic of the social, economic, and ecological component associated to it [28]. Land-use indices based on GIS are good predictors of changes in landscape patterns [29] and help to design strategies for restoration [30]; while socioeconomic indices reflect the contribution of natural resources to wellbeing. Incorporating socioeconomic indices to land-use patterns at the local level is critical for decision-making in areas under mining extraction. Recently, most of the rural projects to restore or ameliorate the environmental impacts of mining highly rely on community participation; communities will be prompt to participate according to the degree of the benefits and impacts perceived [31]. Although there is a large body of research that has studied the impact and benefits of mining, research using GIS to explore land use changes and its connection to socioeconomic wellbeing at the local level is exiguous. Most of the studies that address the social component of mining has revolved around the assessment of socioeconomic benefits and costs, and the effects to development if closing the mines [32] partially reflecting the real impacts and benefits to stakeholders.
Mining is one of the oldest economic activities developed in Mexico after the Spanish conquest. In recent decades, Mexican gold and silver have substantially reached the international markets [11] occupying first and seventh rank of silver and gold production with an estimated market value of 2.4 and 4.3 thousand millions United States Dollars, respectively [33]. The state of Chihuahua is characterized for its forestry and mineral richness, in particular along the Sierra Tarahumara; those two activities comprise more than 50% of the state’s income [34]. While forest harvesting has stagnated lately, mining has expanded. In 2015 the extraction of gold in the municipality of Ocampo was of 9640 tons, around 7.2% of the total production of Mexico [33]; similarly, this municipality is known for its large areas of forest cover.
In Mexico, most of the studies related to mining have been done at the state level; there are not studies at the local level that provide information of the real contribution/impacts of mining to society. This study aimed to evaluate the impacts of mining to the landscape at the local level. To accomplish this goal, we constructed indices of sustainability for the social, economic, and land-use dimensions to further develop an index of local sustainability. Building local indices would help policy makers and industry to develop mitigation and adaptation strategies that directly benefit the affected localities.

2. Methodology

2.1. Study Site

The Ocampo mining region is located at the heart of Sierra Tarahumara in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico. This region is comprised of three municipalities Ocampo, Temosachi, and Moris with a GPS coordinates of 28.49 N, 108.49 E and 28.08 N, 107.91 E (Figure 1). About 80% of the region is composed of steep mountains, while the other 20% is covered by plateaus and valleys [34] with elevations between 458 and 2911 meters above the sea level (masl). Three rivers (Balloreca, Concheño and Apituychi) flow through the mountains systems, irrigating the agricultural land of the state of Sonora to finally discharge into the Pacific Ocean [35]. Due to biological and physical characteristics of the region, there are two Natural Protected Areas (Parque Nacional Basaseachi and the Área de Protección de Flora y Fauna Tutuaca) that are home to a large number of species of flora and fauna.
In economic terms, the region produced 35% of the gold extracted from the Sierra Tarahumara [36]. In 2015, despite of the historical importance of forest production in the Sierra Tarahumara, the value of gold production was three times higher than the forest production [36,37]. At national level, the Ocampo region occupies 3rd place for gold production with 451 million USD and 2nd place of forest production with an estimate of 157 million USD. The region is currently facing a fast process of degradation and fragmentation due to the extraction of gold and timber harvesting principally; this situation is aggravated by forest clear cut for agriculture and cattle, and forest fires [34,38].

2.2. Data Collection

2.2.1. Land Use Indices

The land-use change, number of patches, Shannon and Simpson indices, Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and the rate of erosion were obtained after processing four scenes of Landsat Images TM 5 for the year 2000 and Landsat OLI for 2014 under the path/row 33/40, 33/41, 34/40 and 34/41 with their respective radiometric and atmospheric correction [39]. The images were acquired for free from the United States Geological Survey and registered under the Universal Transversal Mercator (UTM) on the zone 12 N with datum World Geodesic System of 1984. Each band has a resolution of 30m. To compare images of different years the Top Atmosphere (TOA) process was used to convert digital numbers (DN) to values of reflectance. Differences of atmospheric conditions were corrected with the dark object subtraction method (DOSM) [40]. To adjust the localization error a geometric re-sampling with a linear polynomic of first grade was used until obtaining the square root of the medium error at 1.0 pixel.
In addition, the land use classification and vegetation was determined through the supervised analyzing method using the Euclidian distance to measure pixels’ similarity [41]. Using the Gaussian probabilistic model we obtained maps for 2000 and 2014. Once we had land use, a Patch Analysis module Arcgis® (Redlands, CA, USA) was conducted to determine fragmentation [42]. Landscape fragmentation was represented by the number of patches in the area (NumP). Patches were then analyzed as individual polygons or as group of nearby neighborhood. The two images were converted to vectors before the calculation of de indices.

2.2.2. Socioeconomic Data

Data were collected at the household level in 12 localities of three municipalities comprising the Ocampo mining region. A questionnaire of 85 questions was designed and divided in 10 sessions to obtain information on: general household information, sources of income, expenditure, type of house, water availability, way to dispose waste, agricultural, livestock and forestry production, and perceptions about food security, from which we derived the final 12 economic and the 10 social indicators (Table 1). The sample population was randomly selected using the reference of [43]. A total of 130 questionnaires were administered in the localities. The number of questionnaires varied in each locality due to the total number of households for each of them. Four graduate and undergraduate students were trained to serve as interviewers.

2.2.3. Developing the Sustainability Indices (IS)

Data from the questionnaires were processed in Excel to further standardized measuring units for each variable. A relative index was created for each component (Equation (1)), [22].
R .   I .   = 1 ( X i X m i n ) / ( X m a x X m i n )
where: R. I. Relative index, Xi value of variable i in the locality X; while, Xmax and Xmin are maximum and minimum values for the variable i in all localities.
Thus, values range from 0 to 1, being 1 the locality in better condition. However, due the characteristics of some variables, in which 1 does not imply positive connotation such: level of housing crowding, type of flooring in the house, number of patches, Shannon and Simpson indices, % of land-use change, and vegetation index, a factor correction was needed to be able to standardize the meaning of the values 0 and 1 (see Equation (2)).
R . I .   = ( X i X m a x ) / ( X m a x X m i n )
For example, if the house flooring is of dirt, the index should have a value close to 0 to show that this kind of flooring is less desirable. Then, economic (ESI), social (SSI) and land use (LUSI) sustainability indices were computed to then comprised them in an index of local sustainability (LSI). The following equation (Equation (3)) was used to calculate the LSI.
L S I = i = 1 n R I E 12 + i = 1 n R I S 10 + i = 1 n R I L 6
where: LSI = Local sustainability index, RI = Relative index.

2.3. Assessment of Sustainability Indices

A principal component analysis (PCA) was used to observe relations between social, economic, and land use variables. PCA showed the contribution of each variable to each of the sustainability indices and explained the total observed variable; it also helped to observe contrasts among the localities. SAS® CORR (SAS, Cary, NC, USA) procedure was run to find the lineal association between pair of components [44]. A cluster analysis for the localities was used to estimate the closest sustainability index and to validate the PCA procedure [45]. Finally, data was represented with the radar diagram to ease understanding.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Land Use Sustainability Index (LUSI)

Maps showed 10 different types of land use and vegetation (Figure 2): Mining; Open Lands; Oak Forest; Pine Forest; Oak-pine Forest; Pine-oak Forest; Shrubs; Waters Bodies; Deciduous Forest, and Crops Lands. Land-use change, Shannon and Simpson indices, NDVI, and erosion were correlated to landscape fragmentation. The number and average size of patches of forest cover also showed forest fragmentation. Ocampo presented a number of patches of 115, a Shannon index of 1.34 and a Simpson index of 0.67 indicating the presence of fragmentation. The oak forest (OF) showed greater number of patches (537) and pine forest (PF) the lowest (see Table 2). There was a decreased of the average size of patches as a response of the number of patches. From 2000 to 2014 land-use changed as gold mining increased in the localities of Ocampo and Moris. A steady increase of fragmentation could be the response of continuous fuelwood harvesting, opening of roads and changes in land use by expansion of the mining industry, and human settlements [45].
Higher values of LUSI were present in the localities of Yepachi (0.74), La Batería de Rodríguez (0.74) and Moris (0.66), this can be explained due to low levels of erosion and drastic changes in the land-use. In contrast, Gasachi (0.47), Jesús del Monte (0.40) and Ocampo (0.21) showed the lowest values of LUSI. Ocampo is a locality where both mining and forest harvesting are the main sources of income; which highly exceeds the income of the localities nearby.

3.2. Economic Sustainability Index (ESI)

The localities of Huajumar (0.61), Gasachi (0.53) and Ocampo (0.43) showed the highest values for this index, due principally to their higher income compared to the rest of the localities. Huajumar and Ocampo are closer to mining camps and also have a good road system; therefore, more than 50% of the population’s income comes from mining activities. As opposed to El Pilar (0.23), Huevachi (0.20) and Tutuaca (0.03) that showed lower values for this index, operation camps are farther down.

3.3. Social Sustainability Index (SSI)

This index showed a similar tendency of ESI, localities with higher incomes registered higher SSI values, Gasachi (0.91), Huajumar (0.79) and Ocampo (0.78). Higher income, as expected allows people to have better houses with faucet water and more access to food. In contrast, the localities of Huevachi (0.44), La Batería de Rodríguez (0.42) and Tutuaca (0.28) showed the lowest values of the 12 localities of this study. Variables associated to housing were more relevant for the SSI. A decent housing that allows a person to satisfy their basic needs should have faucet water, electrical energy, sewer and solid waste system; concrete flooring material, and enough number of rooms to harbor each member of the family [46,47]. The localities that exhibited low social index are consistent with those localities considered under extreme poverty [47], meaning that besides decent housing, there is also a lack of education or health services.
In regard to food security as an indicator of wellbeing, availability and consumption of animal products such, chicken, beef, poultry, dairy products and eggs the following data was found. The localities of Gasachi, Huajumar and Ocampo showed a major consumption of these products with a frequency of “at least once a week”, eggs and milk were products that are consumed 4 days of the week. In contrast, the localities of Huevachi, Batería de Rodríguez, and Tutuaca showed lower consumption of these products due to their lower income that limited the access to these products.

3.4. Local Sustainability Index (LSI)

We constructed a composite index using land-use and socioeconomic variables. The LSI for the localities of El Pilar, Huevachi and Tutuaca showed the lowest values (0.39, 0.35 and 0.24 respectively). The large distance from the mining activities limits the access to basic needs and food, it also has influence on income; which is reflected on lack of education, and precarious housing for these localities. In contrast, Huajumar, Gasachi and Las Estrellas exhibited higher values (0.67, 0.65 and 0.53 respectively). These localities presented higher incomes and better housing condition; which imply that income from mining is expended in goods and services for household [27].

3.5. Assessment of Sustainability Indices

The values of the sustainability indices are presented in Table 3. Income was a determinant for the ESI (p = 0.0057) and for SSI (p = 0.001); however, there was not an empirical evidence of its impact to LUSI (p = 0.8121). Figure 3 shows the sensibility of indices to changes in income from mining. The ESI showed an increase of 0.017% per year for every 10 thousand Mexican pesos; meanwhile, the SSI increase in 0.022%. Although the LUSI showed a negative value (−0.002), this was not statistically significant (p = 0.8121). A similar trend was observed when comparing localities. Mining as a major activity had an impact on the ESI (p = 0.0150) and the SSI (p = 0.0012) but no for the LUSI (p = 0.8881). We also analyzed the impact of natural protected areas on the indices due to the fact that some localities are within the limits of natural protected areas. There was not significant evidence for the ESI (p = 0.2183) and the LUSI (p = 0.313); however, there is a significant correlation on the SSI (p = 0.0392).
The principal component analysis showed contrast within the localities of Gasachi and Tutuaca (Figure 4); the latter, observed the lowest value of the component 1 (−5.07), which is consistent with the lowest value for the LSI (0.24). The localities of Huajumar and Ocampo showed similar trends with high values on ESI in comparison with Tutuaca and Huevachi that presented the lowest values. Low income in these localities is considered a barrier to access goods and services such food and decent housing. Long distance to mining operations is one of the major problems for these localities, as observed by [19] as well. Meanwhile, Huajumar showed a medium value in the component 1 (2.39) and a high value on component 2 (3.97) indicating that there was a balance among the three indices, which in turn, was exhibited with a highest value in the LSI (0.67).
The radar diagram compiles and summarizes the relationship among the indices obtained from the PCA (Figure 5). It can be seen how the localities identified with the highest incomes showed the values closest to unity in the economic and social indices, while the land-use index behaved differently. As an example, localities such as Ocampo and Basaeachi, that presented high values of ESI and SSI showed low values in the LUSI, due to the fact that they presented changes of forestland use.
In this study, the SSI followed the same pattern since the indicators of human wellbeing are associated to income. Consumption of beef per week, chicken consumption per week and annual income per mining activities showed the highest values of contribution to main component 1 (Table 4). In contrast, the main component 2 is more influenced by the number of patches, annual income from forestry activities and NDVI. In this way we can associate the main component 1 as an indicator of economic development, and the main component 2 as an indicator of ecological development. The analysis of LSI confirmed the tendency of localities of Huajumar and Gasachi accordingly to the results obtained by the PCA. Therefore, it can be concluded that the extraction of gold contributed to economic benefits that enhance the quality of life of people in terms of housing, water availability, education, and road network. Although there was evidence of landscape fragmentation, this was not significant to those documented at regional level [48].
Mining in the Ocampo region was the first predictor of erosion and fragmentation; a previous study reported high levels of trace elements at the runoff water due to mining [34]. Although there were degrees of land disturbance at the local level, these were not significant to those documented at the surface scale of the Sierra Tarahumara [48].
The extraction of mineral resources, especially surface mining, causes numerous negative environmental externalities and socio-economic impacts, i.e., land use changes, ecosystem disturbances, watercourse relocation, and a decrease in ground water level [8], and changes in the economic and social structure of the local population. In recent year public controversies about mining and sustainability have arose, due to the contribution of mining to socioeconomic development versus the environmental degradation [49]. Gold mining, in particular, has a negative image due to low contribution to local localities [50] that has been a determinant of illegal mining which in turn, has detrimental consequences to landscape such high levels of fragmentation, water pollution and loss of aquatic biodiversity [12].
Despite mining seeming to enhance quality of life in economic terms, there is a level of inequality of income among the localities and households. Although there are groups of people who live in the mining operation centers, their income is not necessary a product of their jobs on the mine, leaving them more vulnerable to access goods and services in economic terms [19]. The same situation arises for localities a little further from the mining operation centers; in these cases, localities do not have both physical and economic access to those services [20].
The accessibility dimension of food security is associated with income and a good road system principally; in this regard, our study corroborated what [19] also found, that localities far from production centers have limited access to animal products due to the lack of income and distance.
Local sustainability indices are important to understand regional dynamics in the three dimensions of sustainability. In localities with an indigenous population, where culture and community are intrinsically linked to the management of forest and mining resources, social and economic indicators become more important. The challenge for natural resource management is to balance ecological functioning of natural systems with an increasingly diverse set of demands imposed on those systems by human needs [51]. These include employment, subsistence goods, recreational opportunities, tourism-based economic development, as well as spiritual connections, heritage values, social meanings and aesthetics [52]. Our study confirmed what was previously found by [53] in 71 localities in Australia.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

Sustainable development in the Sierra Tarahumara is becoming more important in particular for the localities that depend on the forest and mining industry. To respond to many sustainability challenges, these localities must be able to measure their progress towards sustainable development.
The framework of local-level sustainability indicators generated in this study could be used as baseline information to assess the level of sustainability of localities dependent on mining in temperate forests and deciduous forests of the Sierra Tarahumara. Nine of the twelve localities had the lowest ESI (<0.40) implying that their level of sustainability is low or unsustainable. The remaining three localities had ESI values of 0.61, 0.53 and 0.43 suggesting a medium level of sustainability. This could be explained by the annual income from economic activities, food expenses and housing costs. The SSI showed the same trend for the same localities (0.90, 0.79 and 0.78). These values indicate that income from mining activity is associated with housing affordability, access to communication and food, in particular animal products as a source of protein.
Localities with low sustainability indices in ESI and SSI showed better behavior in LUSI (>0.66). This is explained by the fact that they did not present a significant change in soil use and their erosion rate was low. Three others localities with intermediate values of economic and social sustainability also presented intermediate values in the LUSI. This is due to the fact that, in addition to participating in mining activities, towns and villages are developing alternative activities such as self-consumption agriculture.
The LSI integrated by ESI, SSI and LUSI showed that three of the twelve localities presented the lowest sustainability indices (<0.39). This may be due to the fact that these localities are far from large population centers and therefore they lack on fixed and well-paid jobs, which is reflected in the precarious housing conditions, poor access to basic services and healthy food.
Although there is a dynamic in the change of coverage of forestland to the use of mining land, there was still insufficient evidence to affirm that the activity implies a process of forest degradation in the region studied, perhaps due to its surface area. We also concluded that mining activity did not have a significant impact on the LUSI component in the two natural protected areas. The condition of being within an area with a protected natural area category had only impacts on the social sustainability index. This is probably due to the distance from the localities to the mining centers. This implies that conservation may halt social development in the region, as an expression of decent housing, water availability, and access to food. Then, there is a dilemma that needs to be resolved: while mining provides immediate social benefits in terms of jobs, income, and infrastructure, conservation runs short on it, and therefore, mining would be more attractive for people under poverty. This dilemma urges the finding of sustainable programs for those localities, such as ecotourism or payments for environmental services to compensate for those benefits that mining could not bring in the short run.
Although mining wealth appears to improve the quality of life for localities in the Ocampo mining region, it is necessary to extend these scales of study to the other mining regions of the Sierra Tarahumara where indigenous workers prevail. It is also necessary to obtain information related to the perception of the local residents in relation to their opinion by the economic, social and environmental impacts.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary File 1

Acknowledgments

Authors want to thank local communities for their valuable contribution, we also want to thank to graduate and undergraduate students Victor Manuel Aguilar, Maria Angelina Gutierrez, y Maria Esther Salas for helping us with data collection. We are also thankful to the inhabitants of the communities of this study without their willingness to participate this study could not have been possible.
Data collection for this study was funded by SEP-PROMEP (Programa al Mejoramiento Académico) September 2014 Convenio OF-14-7427, project “The contribution of forest to food security: perception of rural communities of the Sierra Tarahumara, Chihuahua. Mexico”.

Author Contributions

Carmelo Pinedo and Alfredo Pinedo contributed to the geospatial processing and spatial analysis of environmental indicators; Karla Ozuki Chacón contributed in the data collection and organization of the database, and data analysis. Martin Martínez wrote and discussed the level 1 and 2 indicators; Marusia Rentería revised language editing and organization of the manuscript; Eduardo Santellano, helped with instrument designed to collect socioeconomic data, and statistical analysis. Sandra Rodríguez constructed the socioeconomic indicators and helped with the design of the instrument and structured the English manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hilson, G. The environmental impact of small-scale gold mining in Ghana: Identifying problems and possible solutions. Geogr. J. 2002, 168, 57–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. McMahon, G.; Moreira, S. The Contribution of the Mining Sector to Socioeconomic and Human Development; Extractive Industries for Development Series 30; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 12 June 2014. [Google Scholar]
  3. Garvin, T.; McGee, T.K.; Smoyer-Tomic, K.E.; Aubynn, E.A. Community–company relations in gold mining in Ghana. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 571–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Larsen, J.E.; Kassibo, B.; Lange, S.; Samset, I. Socio-Economic Effects of gold Mining in Mali; CMI Report; CHR Milchensen Institute: Bergen, Norway, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  5. Petkova, V.; Lockie, S.; Rolfe, J.; Ivanova, G. Mining developments and social impacts on communities: Bowen Basin case studies. Rural Society 2009, 19, 211–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kumah, A. Sustainability and gold mining in the developing world. J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 315–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Solomon, F.; Katz, E.; Lovel, R. Social dimensions of mining: Research, policy and practice challenges for the minerals industry in Australia. Resour. Policy 2008, 33, 142–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Spasić, N.; Stojanović, B.; Nikolić, M. Environmental impact of the mining activity and revitalization of degraded space. Arhit Urban 2005, 16–17, 75–85. [Google Scholar]
  9. Mensah, A.K.; Mahiri, I.O.; Owusu, O.; Mireku, O.D.; Wireko, I.; Kissi, E.A. Environmental Impactos of Mining: A Study of Mining Localities in Ghana. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2015, 3, 81–94. [Google Scholar]
  10. Schueler, V.; Kuemmerle, T.; Schröder, H. Impacts of Surface Gold Mining on Land Use Systems in Western Ghana. AMBIO 2011, 40, 528–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Hilson, G.; Haselip, J. The environmental and socioeconomic performance of multinational mining companies in the developing world economy. Miner. Energy 2004, 3, 25–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hun-Bok, J.; Seong-Tack, Y.; Bernhard, M.; Soon-Oh, K.; Seong-Sook, P.; Pyeong-Koo, L. Transport and sediment-water partitioning of trace metals in acid mine drainage: An example from the abandoned Kwangyang Au–Ag mine area, South Korea. Environ. Geol. 2005, 48, 437–449. [Google Scholar]
  13. Matejicek, L.; Kopachova, V. Changes in croplands as a result of large scale mining and the associated impact on food security studied using time-series Landsat images. Remote Sens. 2010, 2, 1463–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rahman, S.; Rahman, M. Impact of land fragmentation and resource ownership on productivity and efficiency: The case of rice producers in Bangladesh. Land Use Policy 2009, 26, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bridge, G. Mapping the bonanza: Geographies of mining investment inan era of neoliberal reform. Prof. Geogr. 2004, 56, 406–421. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kitula, A.G.N. The environmental and socio-economic impacts of mining on local livelihoods in Tanzania: A case study of Geita District. J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 405–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Rajaram, R. Issues in Sustainable Mining Practices, Chapter 3. In Sustainable Mining Practices A Global Perspective; Rajaram, V., Dutta, S., Eds.; A.A. Balkema Publishers: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 45–89. [Google Scholar]
  18. IFC—International Finance Corportation. Sustainable and Responsible Mining in Africa; A Getting Started Guide; IFC Africa: Nairobi, Kenya, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  19. Tonts, M.; Plummer, P.; Lawrie, M. Socio-economic wellbeing in Australian mining towns: A comparative analysis. J. Rural Stud. 2012, 28, 288–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lawson, E.T.; Bentil, G. Shifting sands: Changes in community perceptions of mining in Ghana. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2014, 16, 217–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Singh, R.K.; Murty, H.R.; Gupta, S.K.; Dikshit, A.K. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecol. Indic. 2009, 9, 189–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Martínez-Salvador, M.; Beltrán-Morales, L.; Valdez-Cepeda, R.; Arias, H.R.; Troyo-Dieguez, E.; Murillo-Amador, B.; Galindo, J.J.; Ortega-Rubio, A. Assessment of sustainibility performance on the utilization of agave (Agave salmiana ssp crassispina) in Zacatecas, Mexico. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2007, 14, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hák, T.; Janoušková, S.; Moldan, B. Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecol Indic. 2016, 60, 565–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Morse, S.; McNamara, N.; Acholo, M. Soils, souls and agricultural sustainability: The need for connection. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2004, 7, 410–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Beroya-Eitner, M.A. Ecological vulnerability indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 60, 329–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hens, L.; De Wit, J. The development of indicators and core indicators for sustainable development: A state of the art review. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2003, 6, 436–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ritter, R.M. Archibald. Canada: From fly-In, Fly out to mining metropolis. In Large Mines and the Community: Socioeconomic and Environment Effects in Latin America, Canada and Spain; McMahon, G., Remy, F., Eds.; International Development Research Center, The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  28. Bateman, I.J.; Harwood, A.R.; Mace, G.M.; Watson, R.T.; Abson, D.J.; Andrews, B.; Binner, A.; Crow, A.; Day, B.H.; Dugdale, S.; et al. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: Land use in the United Kingdom. Science 2013, 341, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Menegaki, M.E.; Kaliampakos, D.C. Evaluating mining landscape: A step forward. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 43, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lei, K.; Pan, H.; Lin, C. A landscape approach towards ecological restoration and sustainable development of mining areas. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 90, 320–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Damigos, D.; Menegaki, M.; Kaliampakos, D. Monettizing the social benefits of landfill mining: Evidence from a Contingent Valuation survey in a rural area in Greece. Waste Manag. 2016, 51, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Andrews-Speed, P.; Ma, G.; Shao, B.; Liao, C. Economic responses to the closure of small scale coal mines in Chongging, China. Resour. Policy 2005, 30, 39–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. CAMIMEX. Cámara Minera de Mexico. Mexico Minero Bicentenario. 2016. Available online: https://www.camimex.org.mx/files/5314/3917/9156/sup_2010-10.pdf (accessed on 16 September 2016).
  34. Chacón, K.O.; Rentería, M.; Pinedo, C. Assessment of trace elements in surface water from gold mining area located to West in Chihuahua, Mexico. In Proceedings of the 4th IWA Mexico YWP Conference, Guanajuato, Mexico, 25–27 April 2015. [Google Scholar]
  35. Villanueva, J.; Fulé, P.; Paredes, C.; Estrada, J.; Sánchez, I. Reconstrucción de la precipitación estacional para el barlovento de la Sierra Madre Occidental con anillos de crecimiento de Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.). Cienc. For. Mex. 2009, 34, 37–69. [Google Scholar]
  36. SGM (Servicio Geològico Mexicano). Anuario Estadìstico de la Minerìa en Mèxico, 2015. Coordinaciòn General de Minerìa. Pacuca, Hidalgo, Mex. 2015. Available online: https://www.gob.mx/sgm (accessed on 16 June 2016).
  37. SEMARNAT (Secretaria del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Natuales). Anuario estadìstico de la porduccion forestal 2015. Dirección General de Gestión Forestal y de Suelos. Dirección del Registro y del Sistema Nacional de Gestión Forestal. Mèxico, Mex. Consulta en. 2016. Available online: https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/181383/ANUARIO_FORESTAL_2015.pdf (accessed on 23 June 2016).
  38. Eyé Kawi, Grupo Integral de Servicios Ecosistémicos A.C. Diagnóstico Sobre Determinación y Degradación Forestal en Zonas Prioritarias en el Estado de Chihuahua; Technical Report; Eyé Kawi. A.C.: Chihuahua, Chi, Mexico, 2014. (In Spanish) [Google Scholar]
  39. Jensen, J.R. Introductory Digital Image Processing: A Remote Sensing Perspective, 2nd ed.; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  40. Song, C.; Woodcock, C.E.; Seto, K.C.; Lenney, M.P.; Macomber, S.A. Classification and change detection using Landsat TM data: When and how to correct atmospheric effects? Remote Sens. Environ. 2001, 75, 230–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Richards, J.A. Remote Sensing Digital Image Analysis: An Introduction; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  42. McGarigal, K. Fragstats Help. Massachusetts, US. University of Massachusetts, 2015. Available online: http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/documents/fragstats.help.4.2.pdf (accessed on 29 May 2016).
  43. Costello, A.B.; Osborne, J.W. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2005, 10, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  44. Chacón, K.O. Impacto de la Actividad Minera y Forestal en el Desarrollo Sustentable de la Región Minera Ocampo, Chihuahua. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Mexico, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  45. Jollitte, I.T. Principal Component Analysis; Springer Science and Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  46. Azapagic, A. Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining and minerals industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2004, 12, 639–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Consejo Nacional de Población. Indíce de Marginación por Localidad. Available online: http://www.conapo.gob.mx/es/CONAPO/Indice_de_Marginacion_por_Localidad_2010 (accessed on 20 March 2015).
  48. Pinedo, A.A.; Prieto, A.J.A.; Morales, C.M.C.; Villarreal, G.F.; Pinedo, A.C. Atlas del Sistema de Monitoreo de Datos e Información de Indicadores Ambientales de la Sierra Tarahumara; Proyecto Tarahumara Sustentable; Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua: Chihuahua, Mexico, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  49. Mudd, G.M. The environmental sustainability of mining in Australia: Key mega-trends and looming constraints. Resour. Policy 2010, 35, 98–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kuma, J.S. Hydrogeological studies on the Tarkwa gold mining district, Ghana. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2007, 66, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Beckley, T.M. Sustainability for Whom? Social Indicators for Forest-Dependant Localities in Canada; Sustainable Forest Management Network; Project Report 2000-34; University of Alberta: Edmonton, Albert, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  52. Sherry, E.; Halseth, R.; Fondahl, G.; Karjala, M.; Leon, B. Local-Level Criteria and Indicators: An Aboriginal Perspective on Sustainable Forest Management. Forestry 2005, 78, 513–539. Available online: http://forestry.oxfordjournals.org/ (accessed on 14 October 2015).
  53. Hajkowicz, S.A.; Heyenga, S.; Moffat, K. The relationship between mining and socio-economic well being in Australia’s regions. Resour. Policy 2011, 36, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Location of the 12 study sites in the municipalities of Temosachic, Ocampo and Moris in the mining region of Ocampo.
Figure 1. Location of the 12 study sites in the municipalities of Temosachic, Ocampo and Moris in the mining region of Ocampo.
Resources 06 00042 g001
Figure 2. Mapping of land use classification with Landsat OLI8 images from year 2014.
Figure 2. Mapping of land use classification with Landsat OLI8 images from year 2014.
Resources 06 00042 g002
Figure 3. Values of the B1 estimator for the region's sustainability indices miner of Ocampo.
Figure 3. Values of the B1 estimator for the region's sustainability indices miner of Ocampo.
Resources 06 00042 g003
Figure 4. PCA ordination showing the localities along the first and the second principal component axes. These axes explained 47% of the total variation.
Figure 4. PCA ordination showing the localities along the first and the second principal component axes. These axes explained 47% of the total variation.
Resources 06 00042 g004
Figure 5. Radar diagram showing the distribution of assessed sustainability indices.
Figure 5. Radar diagram showing the distribution of assessed sustainability indices.
Resources 06 00042 g005
Table 1. Indicators selected for the economic, social and environmental components.
Table 1. Indicators selected for the economic, social and environmental components.
IndicatorsComponentsUnit of Measurement
Annual income per mining activityEconomic$
Annual income from forestry activitiesEconomic$
Annual income from government programsEconomic$
Income from agricultural activitiesEconomic$
Income from other wagesEconomic$
Other sources of incomeEconomic$
Costs per dressEconomic$
Food expensesEconomic$
Expenses for servicesEconomic$
Recreation expensesEconomic$
Household expensesEconomic$
Expenditure on productive activitiesEconomic$
Households with water availabilitySocial%
Level of overcrowdingSocial%
Homes with electricitySocial%
House with earthen floorSocial%
Households with waste collectionSocial%
Household drainageSocial%
Egg consumption per weekSocialNone
Chicken consumption per weekSocialNone
Consumption of beef per weekSocialNone
Milk consumption per weekSocialNone
Number of patchesEnvironmentalNo
Erosion rateEnvironmentalTon/ha−1
Shannon IndexEnvironmentalIndex
Simpson IndexEnvironmentalIndex
Land-use changeEnvironmental%
Differential normalized vegetation index (NDVI)EnvironmentalIndex
Table 2. Number of patches by coverage classification for scenes 2000 and 2014.
Table 2. Number of patches by coverage classification for scenes 2000 and 2014.
MunicipalityCoverageNumber of Patches
20002014
TemósachiMining00
Open land711
Oak forest12,85013,387
Pine forest100105
Oak-pine forest10411063
Pine-oak forest24762543
Shrubs131183
Water bodies00
Deciduous forest00
Crops lands2323
MorisMining24
Open land211
Oak forest37263945
Pine forest22
Oak-pine forest9301073
Pine-oak forest207230
Shrubs00
Water bodies00
Deciduous forest687710
Crops lands00
OcampoMining037
Open land2430
Oak forest37233913
Pine forest5757
Oak-pine forest11081250
Pine-oak forest16881748
Shrubs00
Water bodies03
Deciduous forest192283
Crops lands00
Table 3. Indices composed of economic, social and land use sustainability determined in the mining region of Ocampo, Chihuahua, Mexico.
Table 3. Indices composed of economic, social and land use sustainability determined in the mining region of Ocampo, Chihuahua, Mexico.
LocalityESISSILUSILSI
Basaseachi0.420.590.570.51
El Pilar0.230.450.580.39
Gasachi0.530.910.470.65
Huajumar0.610.790.580.67
Huevachi0.200.440.510.35
Jesús del Monte0.300.510.400.40
La Batería de Rodríguez0.260.420.740.42
Las Estrellas0.300.740.640.53
Moris0.300.680.660.51
Ocampo0.430.780.210.51
Tutuaca0.030.280.600.24
Yepachi0.270.530.740.47
ESI = Economic Sustainability Index. SSI = Social Sustainability Index. LUSI = Land use Sustainability Index. LSI = Local Sustainability Index.
Table 4. Contribution of the indicators to the main components PC1 and PC2.
Table 4. Contribution of the indicators to the main components PC1 and PC2.
IndicatorPC1PC2
Annual income per mining activity0.290.09
Annual income from forestry activities0.080.29
Annual income from government programs0.110.15
Income from agricultural activities0.010.27
Income from other wages0.07−0.06
Other sources of income0.21−0.14
Costs per dress0.19−0.22
Food expenses0.27−0.25
Expenses for services0.040.12
Recreation expenses0.250.11
Household expenses0.270.11
Expenditure on productive activities0.240.03
Households with water availability0.030.29
Level of overcrowding−0.180.2
Homes with electricity0.20.25
House with earthen floor−0.1−0.1
Household drainage0.19−0.22
Households with waste collection0.230.07
Egg consumption per week0.150.22
Chicken consumption per week0.32−0.15
Consumption of beef per week0.32−0.08
Milk consumption per week0.23−0.06
Number of patches0.04−0.38
Erosion rate0.1−0.14
Shannon Index0.09−0.11
Simpson Index0.190.13
Land-use change0.140.21
Differential normalized vegetation index (NDVI)0.120.27

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pinedo-Álvarez, C.; Chacón-Chumacero, K.O.; Pinedo-Álvarez, A.; Martínez-Salvador, M.; Rentería-Villalobos, M.; Santellano-Estrada, E.; Rodríguez-Piñeros, S. Using Social, Economic and Land-Use Indices to Build a Local Sustainability Index in a Mining Region of the Sierra Tarahumara, Mexico. Resources 2017, 6, 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources6030042

AMA Style

Pinedo-Álvarez C, Chacón-Chumacero KO, Pinedo-Álvarez A, Martínez-Salvador M, Rentería-Villalobos M, Santellano-Estrada E, Rodríguez-Piñeros S. Using Social, Economic and Land-Use Indices to Build a Local Sustainability Index in a Mining Region of the Sierra Tarahumara, Mexico. Resources. 2017; 6(3):42. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources6030042

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pinedo-Álvarez, Carmelo, Karla Ozuki Chacón-Chumacero, Alfredo Pinedo-Álvarez, Martín Martínez-Salvador, Marusia Rentería-Villalobos, Eduardo Santellano-Estrada, and Sandra Rodríguez-Piñeros. 2017. "Using Social, Economic and Land-Use Indices to Build a Local Sustainability Index in a Mining Region of the Sierra Tarahumara, Mexico" Resources 6, no. 3: 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources6030042

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop