Coal Mining and Human Wellbeing: a Case-Study in Shanxi, China

ResearchOnline@JCU This file is part of the following reference: Li, Qian (2016) Coal mining and human wellbeing: a case-study in Shanxi, China. PhD thesis, James Cook University. Access to this file is available from: http://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/47252/ The author has certified to JCU that they have made a reasonable effort to gain permission and acknowledge the owner of any third party copyright material included in this document. If you believe that this is not the case, please contact [email protected] and quote http://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/47252/ Coal mining and human wellbeing: A case- study in Shanxi, China Thesis submitted by Qian Li In April 2016 For the degree of Doctor Philosophy James Cook University Townsville Queensland 4811 Australia Statement of Contribution of Others Financial support • Graduate Research School, James Cook University • Chinese Scholarship Council (CSC) • College of Science and Engineering (formerly the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences), James Cook University • College of Business, Law and Governance (formerly School of Business), James Cook University Thesis Committee • Associate Professor David King • Professor Natalie Stoeckl • Associate Professor Emma Gyuris Intellectual support Research design Professor Natalie Stoeckl Questionnaire design • Professor Natalie Stoeckl • Associate Professor David King • Associate Professor Emma Gyuris Data collection 6 Research assistants 1 Data analysis and statistical support • Professor Natalie Stoeckl 1 Research assistants recruited from Shuozhou, Linfen and Yangquan were university students living or studying in the case-study areas and spoke local dialect. They were responsible for interviewing the respondents and filling out questionnaire. i • Dr Rabiul Beg Editorial support • Professor Natalie Stoeckl • Associate Professor David King • Associate Professor Emma Gyuris Permits Research associated with this thesis complies with current laws of Australia and all permits necessary for the project obtained (JCU Human Ethics H5094). ii Acknowledgements I felt lucky in the beginning of the journey just because of the fact that I was here to start my journey. At the end, when I look back, I feeI blessed. Without the loving and supportive network I have, I would not have made such a significant progress, and this journey could not have been so amazing. My gratitude to my outstanding supervisors is beyond words. First, thanks to Associate Professor David King, I would not have had this opportunity without his support. He helped me with all the major or trivial issues from the first day until the last with lots of patience and trust. He provided valuable guidance for my research and detailed feedback, kept me motivated and made sure my work went smoothly. Professor Natalie Stoeckl, she spared no efforts and time to help me with every stage of my PhD. She always inspired me with wonderful ideas, for the structure and details of my research. The notes from her to help me understand her ideas accumulated into a pile. I am amazed by her ability to make everything so interesting. She always found a way to make me feel confident and passionate about my research. I am indebted to her for her kindness, patience, and encouragement to me. Associate Professor Emma Gyuris offered valuable ideas and support to my writing, presentation etc. I was impressed with her diligence, rigorous thinking and attention to the details, which improved my work dramatically. I could not image what the journey would have been like without Emma Ryan, my dearest friend. The friendship with her is one of the best things from this journey, which has significant meaning to me. We spent so much time in and outside University and shared numerous unforgettable moments. She accompanied me through my ups and downs, and always offered help before I even asked for it. Many thanks to the lovely girls from the lunch group as well as my office mate Astrid Vaschette. They make every ordinary working day cheerful. I would like to thank everyone who participated in the fieldwork, and lots of friends, such as Cheryl Fernandez, Rie Hagihara and Meen Hong, who offered me practical advice. iii I am deeply grateful to my family. As usual, they shared all my struggling, growth and happiness, protected me from any distractions from my PhD and supported me unconditionally. iv Abstract Coal has been an essential source of energy that has fuelled economic growth and development throughout modern history. Its use has delivered astonishing developments in human living standards and wellbeing. Coal is the most affordable and widely available source of energy. It is particularly essential for developing countries, such as China, as it helps deliver economical and stable electricity to underpin economic growth and poverty alleviation. That said, environmental problems associated with coal, such as human-enhanced greenhouse effects generated when coal is burned are of concern. For host (mining) communities, coal mining seems to also be a two-edged sword. Coal resource development, for example, can bring numerous jobs, can increase household incomes and can generate revenue for governments, which is significant for regional development. But numerous negative impacts have been documented; coal mining can adversely affect natural capital (environment), human capital, social capital, institutional capital and the economy (e.g. through inflation). These ‘capitals’ all contribute to human wellbeing; so the impacts of mining on human wellbeing are complex and multifaceted. Some impacts, such as mining revenues, are tangible, likely positive, and can be easily observed and quantified from market transactions. In contrast, other impacts, on the environment, culture, and society, are often intangible are thus much less easily quantified or observed. Existing mining impact assessment processes, such as environmental/social/economic impact assessment, and assessments of eco-compensation for mining, struggle to quantify the numerous non-market impacts of mining; they thus struggle to provide data to defensibly assess trade-offs between the benefits and costs of mining that takes account of all tangible and intangible impacts on host communities. This difficulty results, partly, from the fact that currently available methods (mostly traditional economic non- market valuation techniques) for assessing intangible impacts are on occasion inadequate – particularly when assessing numerous simultaneous and inter-related impacts. The life satisfaction (LS) approach, shows advantages over other non-market v valuation methods, and has been successfully used to assess a range of non-market goods, but it has not yet been used to measure the impacts of mining. This study aims to assess the impacts of coal mining on LS – associated with the more general term ‘human wellbeing’, which includes objective and subjectice dimensions. Specifically, it uses insights from the wellbeing literature and from the LS approach to quantify and compare multiple impacts of coal mining; and it assesses the trade-off between benefits (mostly monetary – e.g. through income) and costs (numerous, often intangible) of coal mining on host communities. In doing so, it offers insights into how coal mining affects a range of wellbeing factors or life domains. It also provides insights about the net impacts of mining, about who benefits most/least from coal mining and about how one might target policy to compensate those who do not perceive a net benefit. It thus identifies policy priorities to help mitigate the negative and enhance the positive impacts of coal mining on human wellbeing. This study focusses on 3 major research questions, each of which is directly linked to an identified research gap: 1. How does coal mining affect people’s subjective perceptions of different wellbeing factors? This includes the importance attached to each wellbeing factor, satisfaction with each factor, and people’s perception about the impacts of coal mining on these factors. 2. Does information about the impacts of coal mining derived from subjective assessments of wellbeing convey the same message about the impacts of coal mining as ‘objective’ measures of wellbeing? 3. Is it possible to quantify the net impacts of coal mining (on broad ‘domains’ of life and on the overall wellbeing of host communities) and to determine how much should, in principle, be paid ‘in compensation’ to those who are, overall, impacted negatively? Shanxi province, the most important coal producer in China, was selected as the case- study region. Within Shanxi, 5 types of case-study areas, including rural areas with coal mining (Rural With), rural areas close to coal mining (Rural Close), urban areas close to coal mining (Urban Close), urban areas far from coal mining (Urban Far) and rural areas vi far from coal mining (Rural Far) were selected for focus – providing insights from a cross- section of people with differential exposure to coal mining. A comprehensive set of data on wellbeing was not available in the case-study areas. Therefore, questionnaire surveys were used to collect data on 29 different factors known (from the literature) to affect wellbeing. Residents were asked to indicate how important they thought each factor was to their overall wellbeing, how satisfied they were with each, and how they thought coal mining was (or could) impact those factors. They were also asked about their satisfaction with life overall, and to provide some basic sociodemographic information.

Load more