| Popis: |
There are different contexts to describe man-made and natural elements in mining and its associated landforms. All of them are important in perceiving the process of surface mining and in making land-use decisions. The study of mining and reclamation must bridge the chasm between science and art; one way is to use a common language. Too often, one discipline undervalues the other’s expertise. Scientists, designers, and citizens can be aware of a wider mutual understanding in their different perspectives of mining and landscape through the use of a vernacular language (i.e. the normal/common spoken form) rather than filling sentences with their unique subject vocabulary (lexicon). The public, governmental agencies, and industry can then more effectively communicate with one another. In sharing data and presenting site information at public meetings, it behooves industry and consultants to speak with citizens and each other in easily understood forms or to explain specialized expressions indigenous to a particular field. We speak of and view mining from four fundamentally different disciplines: 1) Architectural—spoken by the “designer” (including land planner or landscape architect) 2) Natural context—the “science speak” of the geologist, hydrologist, or engineer 3) Social—regulated by health, safety, or transportation departments 4) Cultural—relating to aesthetics and customary beliefs The author presents a spreadsheet of the four perspectives and includes citizen reaction to permitting through newspaper articles. Regulatory consideration is taken from a State and Federal law standpoint. People are more willing to accept the presence of mining if they understand the science and if the industry is responsive to aesthetic and sociocultural factors. |
